7 Responses to “This goes here this goes there and this . . .”

1. admin says:

   January 20 at 2:24 am

   > http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html

   A story about the absentee ballot controversy in Seminole and Martin
   counties.

   Seems like something was quite possibly rotten there, but I’d be
   rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy.
2. admin says:

   January 20 at 2:24 am

   Was this requested?
   

   Jim Kingdon <king…@panix.com> wrote in article
   <p4wbsumolnm….@panix2.panix.com>…

   - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

   > > http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html
   

   > A story about the absentee ballot controversy in Seminole and Martin
   > counties.

   > Seems like something was quite possibly rotten there, but I’d be
   > rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy.
3. admin says:

   January 20 at 2:24 am

   "The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast in
   Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the
   number of absentee votes that each party received"?

   Blazin’ Tommy D. <td…@stny.rr.com> wrote in article
   <01c06141$727172e0$d8865f18@federalist>…

   - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

   > Was this requested?
   

   > Jim Kingdon <king…@panix.com> wrote in article
   > <p4wbsumolnm….@panix2.panix.com>…
   > > > http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html

     I’d be
   > > rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy.
4. admin says:

   January 20 at 2:24 am

   > "The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast in
   > Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the
   > number of absentee votes that each party received"?

   Interesting.  I failed to notice the latter remedy in the news
   coverage to date.

   NPR was saying there could be a decision at 2:15pm Eastern, 30 minutes
   from now as I write this.

   The Martin county complaint (dated 1 Dec 2000) is at
   http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html (under
   "Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850)").  The "invalidate a
   proportion remedy" is labeled "three" on page 10.  The briefs on that
   page go into more detail of the law and whether throwing out ballots
   might be justified as a remedy (see for example pages 3-5 of
   "Defendant Martin County Canv. Bd. Trial Brief" although I couldn’t
   quickly find a place where the briefs went into the proportion issue).
5. admin says:

   January 20 at 2:24 am

   Jim Kingdon <king…@panix.com> wrote in article
   <p4w3dfyoip2….@panix2.panix.com>…
   > > "The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast
   in
   > > Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the
   > > number of absentee votes that each party received"?

    > The Martin county complaint (dated 1 Dec 2000) is at

   > http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html (under
   > "Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850)").  The "invalidate a
   > proportion remedy" is labeled "three" on page 10.  The briefs on that
   > page go into more detail of the law and whether throwing out ballots
   > might be justified as a remedy (see for example pages 3-5 of
   > "Defendant Martin County Canv. Bd. Trial Brief" although I couldn’t
   > quickly find a place where the briefs went into the proportion issue).

   BTD: See how misleading the media can be!
           The court ruled against the plaintiff(s)
6. admin says:

   January 20 at 2:24 am

   (us.politics.elections added; I’m dissecting court rulings in Martin
   County and Seminole County).
   

   > BTD: See how misleading the media can be!
   >    The court ruled against the plaintiff(s)

   The Martin County ruling is at
   http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html (go to
   case Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850), 8 Dec 2000 and
   look for "Final Judgment for Defendants").  The interesting thing is
   that it relies heavily on the "will of the voters" type reasoning that
   had been Florida election law but which was somewhat called into
   question (vis a vis a prez election) by the US Supremes just a few
   days ago.  The Martin Country opinion doesn’t address throwing out
   some vs. all ballots because they rule that throwing out ballots in
   general isn’t called for in this kind of situation.

   P.S. One interesting fact – the Republicans were allowed to correct
   the ballots because the Republican party had sent people a pre-printed
   ballot request form with errors.  The Dems also had such a form, but
   it didn’t have the errors.  This doesn’t affect whether the Reps
   violated the law, but it does make the whole thing seem somewhat less
   sinister.

   Or in Seminole Country, Jacobs v. Seminole County
   Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2816, 1D00-4686, and 1D00-4717), "Final Order", also
   under 8 Dec 2000.  A similar opinion.
7. admin says:

   January 20 at 2:24 am

   Someone else claimed this earlier, in a confused way on this NG.  I agree it
   gives their conduct a different spin.  Sloppy on Repugnicans part though.
   

   - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

   > P.S. One interesting fact – the Republicans were allowed to correct
   > the ballots because the Republican party had sent people a pre-printed
   > ballot request form with errors.  The Dems also had such a form, but
   > it didn’t have the errors.  This doesn’t affect whether the Reps
   > violated the law, but it does make the whole thing seem somewhat less
   > sinister.
   

   > Or in Seminole Country, Jacobs v. Seminole County
   > Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2816, 1D00-4686, and 1D00-4717), "Final Order", also
   > under 8 Dec 2000.  A similar opinion.