>>For those who asked questions and were given incorrect answers or no answer at all, and for those denied the ability to vote for lack of supplies, is there no remedy under Florida law? (I am asking here, not trying to extract a particular answer) Nathan's Response: Ok. Let's assume that all of the above is true. I have a two-part answer. First, pragmatically speaking, this sort of thing happened all over the country, not just Palm Beach County. It happens in every election, they're simply usually not close enough to matter. But imagine invalidating the results from hundreds or thousands of precincts around the country. From a realist perspective I don't see it happening..but the Republicans will rightfully cry foul if it just happens in Palm Beach County. (A quick perusal of newspaper websites from around the country found numerous such examples. Just look, you don't have to take my word for it.) Second, from a legal perspective, to invalidate an election requires a very high standard to be met. Assuming that it is met under Florida law (which the precedent so far indicates it won't be...and I just finished speaking with five law students who are feverishly working for a law prof working with the Gore campaign--this law school is roped right in with them here in Florida)--which I suppose could happen from a very cynical mindset--five of 7 Florida Supreme Court Justices are reliably Democrat or so I was told privately by someone working with the Gore campaign...there would almost certainly be a constitutional challenge to any recount based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Palm Beach County voters would have an advantage over other voters). Nevertheless, the real point here is that precedent indicates that even significant negligence on the part of county officials within a state election does not give rise to overturning the result. Even on a screwed up ballot. Why? Voters are entitled to relief from incompetent election officials--you can force a change in procedures before the next election. But to use the cliche: two wrongs don't make a right. Heck, in Boston, they failed to count 30,000 votes (today's Boston Globe), in New Mexico they lost at least 250 or so (today's CNN), the poll closing time fiasco in St. Louis etc. So long as we have a variety of voting methods and human beings assisting in the polls, there will be error...how much error is acceptable is a question, as is what to do about it. However, there is an extremely strong legal presumption in assuming that elections were fair and errors "normal" and that voters were intelligent. Why? There are potential legitimate challenges in any close election. For courts to continuously choose the winner arguably is an usurpation of power and courts have generally been extremely reluctant to invalidate elections on the basis of anything other than widespread fraud. It would probably take a ballot missing a major candidate's name or the actual loss of a huge amount of votes for a vote to be invalidated on anything other than criminal grounds. Put it this way, one of the precedents the Gore team is relying on concerns a dirty Miami mayoral election where some absentee ballots were crooked. The circuit court ordered a new election. The Court of Appeals reversed and simply threw out all the absentee ballots. No one who cast an absentee ballot got a vote or had their "voice heard in the electoral process." Basically, the court said, too bad, it's the best we can do. You can't have perfect justice...in order to ensure the most amount of justice in the long run, you have to have consistency in the law, sometimes that causes injustice in the short run. How much in this case? I have no clue. However, 2nd graders were able to figure out a ballot like this (see today's Slate). Nathan Freeburg.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST