Judge Sauls said that the evidence did not show “reasonable probability.” This is a new concept to me. Is this some kind of Floridian rule of law? Gore’s team is seeking equitable relief. The rule for equitable relief is “clear and convincing evidence.”
Why didn’t Judge Sauls use “clear and convincing,” instead of “reasonable probablility”? This is one for you Philadelphia lawyers, or better yet, Floridian lawyers.
The Florida Supreme Court, in setting the standard for determining when an election contest would be successful, when there was no evidence of fraud, used that standard. In Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board, 707 So.2d 720 (1998), the Florida Court stated,
Thus, Judge Saul’s ruling.
The case you quoted from said, “…reasonable doubt…” That is far from “reasonable probability.” Reasonable doubt, to me, appears to be the obverse of “reasonable possibility” not “probability.”
True, ‘reasonable doubt’ is not necessarily ‘reasonable probability’. That is, we usually think that ‘reasonable doubt’ is a fairly low standard, whereas one might compare reasonable probability to ‘more likely than not’.
I would think, though, that the Judge was doing two things: first, he wasn’t about to let the standard get too low; if you read the Beckstrom case itself, the opinion doesn’t always use the words ‘reasonable doubt’; in at least one case it says ‘doubt’. But clearly, something less than ‘way way likely’ was what the Florida Supreme Court had in mind. Why he chose those particular words, I can’t answer.
From the Beckstrom cite, the court needs to find “substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures” in addition to not being the will of the voters. What did Judge Saul find that was substantial? I thought this was about a small amount of the total vote.
I just heard a report this morning on this, and they mentioned that it may be one thing that the lawyers for Gore haven’t pressed all that much (though, according to the report, it was mentioned in a brief) – this is the standard to overturn the election, which is not what they’re looking to do.
This means that the Bergstrom case may not be relevant – since the quote given says :
It may have been a small amount of the total vote, and indeed it was, but the margin of victory (or defeat) was even smaller. “Substantial” is relative.
Well, the Bergstrom case is completely irrelevant. The Beckstrom case, on the other hand, may or may not be applicable.
I think in the Beckstrom case, the court was adapting criminal law into an equity case. A person is innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In Beckstrom, the court said that the results will prevail unless there was substantial noncompliance with the law proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the Gore case, if one were to apply the Beckstrom case, Gore would have to show both “substantial noncompliance” and " a reasonable doubt." I don’t see where the substantial noncompliance comes into play. Gore’s team tried to show that there is substantial statistical evidence that if the defective votes count, he would prevail. Although both have to do with elections, I don’t think that the Beckstrom is even relevant.