Remember the Democrat Justices of the Florida Supreme Court During Bush v. Gore?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | June 12th, 2012 at 04:46 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

Pretty much everyone except the most hard charging partisans have finally conceded that, despite the United States Supreme Court’s involvement in Bush v. Gore, George Bush did win Florida by just over 500 votes in 2000. In fact, in a nonpartisan media backed recount effort, George Bush would have won by every standard demanded, including Al Gore’s standard, except ironically George Bush’s preferred standard.

While everyone largely now accepts that George Bush won Florida, Democrats still hold hard hearts toward the supposed partisan hacks on the United States Supreme Court. They choose to ignore the even more clearly partisan Justices of the Florida Supreme Court who became, during their hearings in the recount matter, national embarrassments.

Three of the Justices, Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy Quince are back in the news for, yet again, being an embarrassment. Their high handedness from the 2000 election seems to have continued.

According to Florida Today the three Justices seemed to think they were immune to the laws of Florida and did not have to qualify for re-election.

The three justices nearly missed the deadline to qualify for the ballot in April. The seven-member court abruptly put a hearing on hold for more than an hour to allow the justices to finish their paperwork and turn it in to state elections officials with just minutes to spare.

Rep. Scott Plakon, a Longwood Republican, wrote a letter to Gov. Rick Scott alleging that Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince violated the law by using court employees to notarize their paperwork for this year’s vote. Violations are a misdemeanor.

Maybe Florida voters should consider sending these three out to the pasture and spare the state further embarrassment.

Tags: Barbara Pariente, Bush v. Gore, Florida Supreme Court, Peggy Quince, R. Fred Lewis

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

exrayman4000

If my memory serves I want to remember that even the chief Justice of the Florida Court told the other 6 Justices the SCOTUS would get further involved. To this day I firmly believe it was the intent of this court to get the Florida electoral votes (tossed) by going past the time limits. Now lets discuss suppressing the will of the voters!

I am not a legal expert, but I still think the SCOTUS was right to bring some sanity to the 2000 election.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

This is a multipart summary of my analysis of 2000.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

I scrutinized the 2000 Florida Statutes which [inter alia] determined that the butterfly-ballots were incompatible with the mandate that all puncture-holes be located to the left of the candidate’s name. Thus, the ballots weren’t “confusing”; they were illegal. [And I cared not who had been responsible for their authorship and/or approvals.] The names of the parties were underneath the names of the candidates, and they were staggered; thus, the name of “Buchanan” was to the left of the name of “Democrat.”

As a result, the masses living in West Palm Beach [many of whom were Jewish and, thus, viewed Buchanan as anathema] thought they were voting BOTH for Gore AND for the straight-D’s when, actually, the latter [predicated on their familiarity with the old Shoup voting machines up-north] actually prompted them to vote for Buchanan…and thereby invalidate their ballots.

All the D’s had to do was to acquire the voter-lists and fan-out to EACH of them…acquiring an affidavit that there had been no intent to support Buchanan. Assuming ~600 people in a voting-spot of ~1000 eligibles were to assert this…and that approximately that number of ballots had been tossed…the “disenfranchisement” argument could easily have been made, “arthmetically.”

I gained the impression–talking with SS–that the “NIH Syndrome” was in-effect. [NIH = "Not Invented Here" while pointing to one's brain] As a result of the D’s not adhering to this focused effort, multitudes of votes were lost to their POTUS candidate.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

I also noted that the following phrase from the SCOTUS could be challenged: “no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

It may be recalled that, on the prior Friday, Harris had mandated that the the recounting-counties report their criteria for the legitimate chads be determined by Saturday-noon, with the completion of the recounts accomplished by Sunday-midnight.

This was stayed prior to Saturday-noon by the SCOTUS, thereby telegraphing what was going to be issued Monday @ 10 p.m. After release of the decision, Rendell tossed the cards prematurely, and the official concession was on Wednesday.

Tuesday-a.m., I got onto NPR-national [radio] and claimed that Gore could take the remand, finish the count by Wednesday, allow for certification and then the contest/protest process to have been completed prior to the Monday-deadline [after which the Florida Legislature, R-dominated, would elect the Electors].
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

The privately-filed “Butterfly” litigation [by Steve Scheller, in Philly, whom I know, on behalf of his mother and others] was not endorsed/pursued by Gore [denying the litigants sufficient standing], a query I posed personally two years hence to Bob Shrum, who was “on the inside” [after a speech he delivered to Philly's World Affairs Council, a few years hence, during the summertime].

[The only issue litigated was the chad-concern.]

Shrum dismissed me, claiming they had capitulated “for the good of the country.”

I theorized that this was actually a decision based on the desire to de-legitimize the Bush administration…yielding electoral benefits in 2002 [notwithstanding the seismic 9-11].
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Of course, few knew Gore would decompensate following his electoral defeat [including moi]; the key-point, however, is that Bush really did NOT win Florida.

The Florida-Justices may have been biased, etc., but I did not discern any error–based on the statute–because the D’s did not choose to challenge ALL of the 67 counties ["equal protection"].

The D’s screwed-up, and they only have themselves to blame. And the SCOTUS acted correctly, simply ensuring that a uniform criterion be applied throughout the state.
http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

In the first place:

You’re raising the “disenfranchisement” argument based on the claim of a disproportionately large number of votes for Pat Buchanan. Did you even stop to examine whether the number of votes received by Buchanan was unusually large?

I did. There were about 425,000 votes cast in Palm Beach County. Buchanan received roughly 3,000 of them, or .7%. Buchanan received 1.1% of the vote nationally, so he actually received fewer than the expected percentage in Palm Beach County — which happens to be the county where he lived at the time. I did a little adjustment for the disproportionally heavy representation of Democrats there, theorizing that Buchanan’s votes were all displaced R votes, not D votes; adjusting for the imbalance beyond 50/50 distribution of Rs and Ds, I concluded that 3,000 votes was PRECISELY the same percentage he was receiving throughout the nation.

So much for making the “disenfranchisement” argument arithmetically. It’s CRAP. It’s INFANTILE NONSENSE. Elderly Democratic party operatives masquerading as “confused” elderly voters made the argument, and whole bunch of duped seniors hopped on board the train and complained, which is what the Dems intended to accomplish. And they fooled you, too, you COMPLETE. FRAKKING. IMBECILE.
http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

If you’ll recall, the Florida Supreme Court actually ruled twice.

The first time, they ruled 7-0 that Florida law required the recount just as the Gore team demanded it. Their argument, however, was so obviously partisan that when the SCOTUS reviewed it, they remanded it to the Florida Supreme Court on a 9-0 vote. Justice Ginsberg, the most liberal judge on the Court, wrote the opinion, which was three paragraphs long; it was the most scathingly acerbic decision I’ve ever read, and basically said “You can’t be serious. Do it again, and this time use an argument that’s legally coherent.”

It was the second decision in which the Florida Chief Justice made the comment you remember. It wasn’t “the SCOTUS is going to get involved,” though; it was “the SCOTUS is not going to let us get away with partisanship, so let’s do our damned jobs.” The Florida court’s 2nd ruling was split 4-3, with the minority (including the Chief Justice) actually deciding according to Florida law, but the majority attempting a more robust-sounding defense of the partisan position. That’s the version of the Florida ruling that finally made it to the Court in Gore v Bush.
http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

I can’t believe I made a “your”, “you’re” error. Time for another cup of coffee. Crud.
justperhaps45

You didn’t mention hanging chads. I remember the lab was able to duplicate hangers in controlled conditions, only by stacking severial (about 20) in the device at once.

Of course in dem districts box stuffing is a time honored green, energy saving, voting technique. It doesn’t require near as many cars on the road.
http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

And in the second place, it does not matter that the ballot was, in your overblown terms, “illegal.” If that were the case, the remedy would have been to hold the election again with a legal ballot, not recount the votes. But the relevant fact is that all parties on the ballot had an opportunity to examine the ballot and raise any objections, and they all signed off on the design that was used. That makes any objection based on the design of the ballot irrelevant.

So, yes, George W. Bush really did win the election in Florida. Even in your bizarro world.
http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

You said “key-point, however, is that Bush really did NOT win Florida.”

This is where you completely retreat from reality and fall into some bizarre, infantile fantasy world.

No matter what you think of the ballot, no matter what you think of the courts, no matter what you think of the recounts, not matter what you think of the Dem party hijinks aimed at overturning an election they knew they had lost. George W. Bush won Florida. That was determined by the legally sanctioned parties certifying the vote. It is a FACT. Your (completely idiotic) opinion regarding any matter cannot change that FACT. It wouldn’t even change it if the objection you were raising made sense; it is a FACT. It cannot be changed, not in this universe.

GROW. THE. MOTHER. F***. UP. and live in reality.
pff23ro

To date Al Gore was the only man in the history of the United States to ever contest a presidential election. The fact of the matter is that both parties examined the ballots before hand and that the outcome should have been respected. Palm beach county was run by the Democrat party, so any ballot irregularity is on them.

Instead Al Gore went on to contest the election. This caused severe damage to the US that we have yet to recover from. Every election since has now been called into question at some point. There was a push to standardize the ballots of a states which is illegal. All the fights we have had with the democrat party over voter ID is to be sure that if an election is close, it will never go to the republicans ever again. Fraud be damned, they must win. The damage it caused President Bush was large as well. And I would submit that much of the hatred that Bush endured was because of this farce Gore started.

There was another candidate for president who had an opportunity to contest an election. That was Rihard Nixon in 1960. All the fraud committed in Chicago (doesn’t that seem so applicable today…) probably cost him the election to Kennedy. Nixon however, put the country first and conceded to Kennedy. The Democrats and Al Gore have no honor and no love for this country, and 2000 should have proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
barleycorn

Thank you!

You provided me with a most enjoyable morning chortle.

One thing you didn’t mention was the network call for Gore while the Republican Panhandle was still voting. That is another unknowable factor that the left (and their idiot enablers on the right) are never interested in incorporating into their fantasies.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because it is based on only the VALIDATED ballots.

[The duplicates were discarded, dumbo!]
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because they could have re-examined the invalidated ballots and chosen to count them, en masse, dumbo.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

Bush lost Florida.

DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF THESE SPECIFICS, and don’t be so %^&*&%&%* % DISMISSIVE!
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…but it’s unclear whether it had an impact.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…there existed sufficient justification to challenge the outcome in Florida…for reasons that were not sufficiently communicated publicly.
ss396

Why is it assumed that any votes for Buchanan were mis-voted? There were other Reform Party candidates down ticket in Palm Beach who received more votes than Buchanan did, and who were not subject ‘butterfly ballot’ misplacement.

The charge that the butterfly ballot confused the voters is the same ol’ tired disdainful, elitist story that gets thrown out and dutifully reported every time a Democrat loses – “the voters were confused.”
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…i anticipated [supra] your transparent effort to sidestep the facts:

“[And I cared not who had been responsible for their authorship and/or approvals.]”

The bottom-line is that a legal mechanism to challenge this Butterfly Ballot was abandoned by the official-D’s…to their ultimate detriment.
PowerToThePeople

you really are not that bright. But at least you were able to call him dumbo, the grade school insult.

Your supposed argument is not only inaccurate, Bob tore it to pieces. Just tuck your tail and run, best advice you will ever get.
barleycorn

This argument makes no sense. If the ballot was “illegal” then it will still be “illegal” no matter how many times you recount the ballots. With every result the losing side would shout “Illegal ballot, let’s recount ‘em again”.
trimulchio

if there is a legal remedy under Frorida Law for a mis-vote, and when that remedy needs to be requested.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…before [contest] or after [protest] Harris’ certification.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

The key was the POTUS section; down-ballot was irrelevant, because those who had voted for Buchanan had not felt “confused” because, when they departed, they thought they had voted both for Gore and for all other D’s.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because the court could have re-validated those that had been discarded inappropriately.
trimulchio

remedy.” Cicero (NOT, where there is a wrong.)

Further, Gore’s challenge was . . . unprofessional, especially given Nixon’s far worse treatment in 1960.

It WASN’T “Tilden or Blood” in 1876 and it should not have been this drama in 2000. There was a certain value in “smoke filled rooms.” A graceful concesion from Gore would have been worth some environmental regulation or even some Democrat input on the next Supreme Court vacency.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…but it truly was apt.

I had just explained why bulk-votes had been invalidated…and thus not counted…and he then proceeded to base personal calculations [despite the absence of these votes] on a supposed equity between Miami and the rest of the world.

No, he didn’t tear-to-pieces either of my points; indeed, he didn’t even address the second one. And, on another page, “acat” noted that his vocabulary was a bit extreme.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/11/house-republicans-just-cant-bring-themselves-to-cut-spending/

Unaccountable STAFF? Is that a joke?
Plumb_Bob (Diary) Tuesday, June 12th at 8:31AM EDT (link)
You can?t possibly be serious. You think that because a staff member worked for another Congressperson, that means the Congressperson is not making the decisions?

Defend that thesis. With examples. Of STFU, because it?s genuinely a stupid argument otherwise.

{This probably a typo; he probably meant “Or”!}
?-
We will not have a righteous government again until we become a righteous nation again.

(A collection of my political essays from 2008-2010 can be found at www.plumbbobblog.com. All visitors welcome.)

Nice language, Plumb_Bob. Go read up on the latter days of Phil Crane.
acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 12th at 8:52AM EDT (link)
Go read how his staff got caught inserting language into bills on ol? Phil?s behalf that Phil *never even knew about*.
trimulchio

but cooler heads prevailed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_J._Tilden
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because a competent challenge would have worked.

The courts have chosen to count previously-invalidated votes, and all the counties had sufficient time to apply uniform standards [24 hours, recalling the events the prior weekend] to determine an outcome.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…are truly problematic [and, of course, indefensible], so it’s even more problematic that you apparently chose to ignore them:

“So much for making the ?disenfranchisement? argument arithmetically. It?s CRAP. It?s INFANTILE NONSENSE. Elderly Democratic party operatives masquerading as ?confused? elderly voters made the argument, and whole bunch of duped seniors hopped on board the train and complained, which is what the Dems intended to accomplish. And they fooled you, too, you COMPLETE. FRAKKING. IMBECILE.”

“George W. Bush really did win the election in Florida. Even in your bizarro world.”

“This is where you completely retreat from reality and fall into some bizarre, infantile fantasy world….Your (completely idiotic) opinion regarding any matter cannot change that FACT. It wouldn?t even change it if the objection you were raising made sense; it is a FACT. It cannot be changed, not in this universe.

“GROW. THE. MOTHER. F***. UP. and live in reality.”
trimulchio

a ballot-by-ballot recount?

In NYS, as I understand it, if you mis-vote, the answer is “So sorry, you should look more closely!”
Finrod

For example, CNN called Florida for Gore when the polls were still open in the Florida panhandle (which is conservative territory). That alone very likely caused Bush to lose as many votes (due to people giving up and not bothering to vote) as Gore theoretically lost due to the Palm Beach county butterfly ballot.

It goes on from there. Lots of military voters were disenfranchised (penalizing Bush) but so were a number of voters mistakenly identified as felons (penalizing Gore). Ballots of black voters had a higher spoilage rate than average (penalizing Gore) but ballots of Republican black voters had a much higher spoilage rate than that (penalizing Bush).

The Florida 2000 vote is what it is, it was ruled for Bush at the time using the standards available. Therefore Bush won Florida and thus the presidency. When you try to claim that Bush lost Florida, it just makes you look like a bloody ignorant fool.
trimulchio

MD/JD? If so, good for you, lot’s of work, to do that!
trimulchio

Almost seems like substituted judgment, or at least giving a party a “do-over.” May be the Florida remedy, but I can see why there was discomfort . . . .
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…invoking my operational suggestion, if voters in each precinct certified that they had voted for Gore in numbers far greater than those tabulated, the rejected ballots would be re-examined.

If they, indeed, had the double-punch invalidation, they could be determined to be a true reflection of the intent to vote for Gore.

They could then be tabulated with the others….without the need for a fresh election…and with the outcome flipped accordingly.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

but i do a lot of medicolegal work
trimulchio

Bio-Ethics Consults and the like?
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

med-mal and disability-impairment.
sharinlite

Florida, recently, purged 56,000 dead voters…I have wondered, what would the results of Bush vs. Gore had been if the dead had not voted. Or, the illegal aliens that are in the process of being purged…the DOJ has demanded Florida stop purging because it is “unconstitutional”, now, if those three justices that were no arrogant back then were involved now, what would they decide? Too bad the “unmedia” is so in the tank for progressives you won’t see this on their pages…..
tragedyofthecommons

Haunts Florida to this day. Electing Democrats to governorships has consequences.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…and that could be “measured.”
http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

1. While I am no particular fan of the Justices up for a retention vote (at least a couple have written some good opinions from a conservative viewpoint of judicial power, albeit not consistently), I do not believe the misdemeanor allegation is significant. Using court or state employees for notary services is generally accepted practice and is essentially immaterial. Whether this is a “political” issue is debatable because it is a retention vote and not a contested “election.” For example, I doubt it would be “political” in the tax exempt arena, which is my area of expertise. For it to meet that standard in a criminal case strikes me as very unlikely. I’d save my battles for something of significance. That they came very close to missing the deadline is indeed interesting and, at least on its face, indicates a lack of attention.
2. I do not understand the comments of Dr. Sklaroff regarding Florida law and the 2000 election. As he indicates earlier, he is not an attorney. No Robert Sklaroff is licensed in Florida for the practice of law; hence, I would take his legal analysis regarding Florida law with a great deal of skepticism.
3. On some issues, non-lawyers provide thoughtful and correct legal analysis; however, that tends not to be the case, particularly when the issues involve statutory construction. Lawyers make lots of mistakes (including me) in analyzing the law. But if you want sound, trustworthy legal analysis, your best bet is to go with someone licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in question.
JSobieski

This is kind of like a socialist claiming “if we can set prices intelligently to reflect current economic conditions, socialism will work better than capitalism”.

The weak link in your argument is the proposition that Gore would have gained votes by a state-wide challenge.

That is pure supposition on your part . . . unless you conducted an informal recount that nobody is aware of.
wordwaryor

Dr. Sklaroff

I find it quite amusing, don’t you, that the ballots were designed and printed by the Democrat party for that Florida election ?

And if there are voters who can’t figure out how to read a ballot and use it to vote properly, should they have any place in deciding who the next leader of the free world and the most powerful nation on earth ?

WW
wordwaryor

While there should have been no problems with reading and identifying so called “hanging chads” during the recount in FLA ……… there was a serious problem with interpreting so called “dimpled chads” as “voter intent”.

Yet that is what the Democrats attempted to do in the Florida recount.

There is no way on God’s Green Earth (or Florida) that a dimpled chad should be interpreted as a voter’s intent. And here’s why :

How do you distinguish between a dimpled chad as a voter’s intent, and a dimpled chad where a voter started to push down then realized that the stylus was in the wrong hole and changed their mind ?

Thus with that simple fact alone ……. dimpled chads are NOT a vote in any way fashion or form.

WW
wordwaryor

After the election Doc ………. there were quite a number of recounts.
And in all these recounts ….. Bush still won.

Get over it …… and go on with life.
It’s just water under the bridge.

And I thank God Almighty and my lucky stars every day that Gore did not in in Florida !!!

WW
wordwaryor

Florida is doing what every good state should do before any major important election, and that is to purge the dead and the illegal voters off the voting rolls. The election belongs to the State and is operated by the State and NOT the Federal government. Hence the Feds have no say so in a State’s election. (Read the 10th Amendment again).

An illegal vote is a very damaging vote on three counts.

1. It is counted as a vote when it is not
2. It cancels a legal voters vote somewhere
3. It often is an additional vote where a person who would cast such a vote has done at least one more vote (his own) and possibly more illegal votes as well.

Hence we the people should expect, nay DEMAND that our states and local governments periodically purge the dead and illegal voters from the voting rolls.

This should be a normal and natural occurrence.

WW
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Enough of the thiny veiled cursing.

Thanks.
ss396

Down-ballot was not irrelevant, in that by recording more votes for other Reform Party candidates than Buchanan received showed a level of sympathy for the Reform Party – or at least sympathy/protest against the two main parties.

There was a thesis going around at the time that votes for Buchanan must be mis-cast because such votes would be against the better interests of the Palm Beach community. That assumption lead to questioning how erroneous voting could have occurred, which ultimately settled upon ‘butterfly ballots’ and ‘confused voters’. This thesis gave some legs to the cause which culminated in the vote re-count mess.
tnfriendofcoal101368

is that Al Gore was not the 43rd President of the United States. George W. Bush won Florida and thus the election.
Finrod

Bush didn’t lose Florida, no matter how you argue it. The litigation was decided by the Supreme Court, so you can’t say ‘well if the litigation had gone differently’, because it DIDN’T.
barleycorn

If the ballots were illegal than any number of challenges could have been brought on an infinite number of grounds. You don’t get to declare a ballot illegal and then cherry-pick the wrongs you are going to right.
JSobieski

Better to actually address the point.

(1) There is no reason to conclude that Gore would have gained more net votes over Bush had there been a statewide recount

(2) Getting “subtantially” more voters to attest to their votes than the actual number of valid votes recorded is a pipe dream to anyone ever involved in getting signatures. See also Wisconsin recall signatures.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

(1) There is no reason to conclude that Gore would have gained more net votes over Bush had there been a statewide recount.

I documented the assertion that there is EVERY reason to conclude that Gore [preferentially] would have gained SUBSTANTIALLY in Miami were just a few hundred people [who claimed they were misled] to have been heard in-court.

(2) Getting ?subtantially? more voters to attest to their votes than the actual number of valid votes recorded is a pipe dream to anyone ever involved in getting signatures. See also Wisconsin recall signatures.

The signatures on the affidavits would have been acquired by D’s, and then presented to the court; this could have been followed by direct testimony that would be corroborative of the double-punch data.

Overall, going through the exercise of performing a uniform statewide recount would have cleansed the system [rather than abandoning performance of due-process labors].
exrayman4000

Thank you for the history lesson. The point I was trying to make was these justices were so hell bent on reversing that circuit court judge (sorry I have forgot his name), that they showed the world what kind of partisan hacks they were. Even the Chief Justice of that court warned them, but to no avail.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…but the demographics of the population-sample that is of-interest [geriatric, Jewish] would not render them susceptible to any sort of modernized poll-tax.

The point, here, is that the law would want to ID the ideal method to capture voter-intent…and SS told me the problem was rampant.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…as per the SCOTUS mandate.

One could argue that a double-dimple would disqualify [for the reason you describe] whereas a single-dimple could be counted.

I honestly don’t know/care regarding specifics; the goal would be fairness.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…again, after uniform criteria were established.

For example, recalling my double-dimple/single-dimple point [supra], one could conclude that additional Reform Party votes would yield the conclusion that the key-error-of-interest had not been made in that particular instance.
littlehouse18

I’ve just finished examining the images of these ballots. To me they are actually clear as to where to mark your vote. First there are arrows that tell you. Also, the circle next to the Reform party is NOT next to ‘Democrat.’ It is on the line between Bush and Gore (those on the left). The only legitimate conclusion is that those people wanted to vote for the Reform ticket. It’s more than a stretch, it’s irresponsible to claim anything else. Anyone who was confused by these ballots should have asked the election officers for help.

Since Reform was not a contender, in the recount you have to throw these ballots out. Any other action, such as divining the voter’s actual intent, is not objective or scientific, but rather foolish at best and deliberately fraudulent at worst.

In addition, the only valid votes are the ones validly voted on that day. Trying to have a re-vote or interpreting votes corrupts the process. Such arguments are dangerous to our Republic, as we have seen in the aftermath of Gore’s challenge.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…because the result would have undermined those who wished to perpetuate the “Illegitimate POTUS” narrative for nefarious purposes.
joydbrower

Thank you for reminding all of us about the difference in strength of character when comparing even “Tricky Dick” to that total pompous axx, Albore! I also share your belief that not only did the BDS begin after that bitter fight, it also marked the beginning of the total divide our country now faces and in which, I must sadly condede, it will be inmeshed for a very long time. The Lib-Progs (aka Dems/Socialists/Marxists) will be the death of this country yet – that is, if our counter measures/initiatives/alliances aren’t successful in “taking our country back.”
littlehouse18

It’s just that Florida is a critical state, and perhaps one where the Dems can more easily manipulate the vote, which is why Holder wants to stop the cleanup.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

In PA, as judge-of-elections, I’ve presided over the generation of Provisional Ballots…which would be cast were some irregularity to have been detected.

In 2010, in Doylestown [Bucks Co.], I testified in a comparable situation, yielding the conclusion that a group of absentee ballots [allegedly acquired fraudulently] could be held in abeyance in a comparable fashion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2760847/posts

Thus, there is legal precedent for handling a group of ballots in a fashion that would allow them to be counted subsequently.

There is no reason why a comparable approach could not have been adopted in Florida.
uselogic

is using the excuse of 5 Florida counties’ violations of the Civil Rights Act. Their agrument is that ALL of Flordia must get permission to do any “cleaning up” of voter rolls. Part of their argument is that the state is doing this too close to an election. In reality, the process was started months ago by FL but the Feds have not allowed FL access to the DHS (ICE, etc) database as they requested…. and have not properly responded. Hence, FL’s lawsuit against the Feds.

There are times I really like our Gov. Scott. This is one.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…was the fact that [1]–Gore should have pursued the Butterfly-Ballot problem, and [2]–Gore should have honored the SCOTUS remand within 24 hours [as Harris claimed would suffice], allowing for all the counties to have reported their data by WEDNESDAY, yielding 48-hours for the result to have been protested…and resolving the situation by week’s end [3 days before the legislature would necessarily have been invoked].
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

….i’m “over it” but the record should be as accurate as possible.

When all recounts are accomplished by using the same criteria, the results won’t change; if new/updated/uniform criteria had been employed, the results could have been different.
littlehouse18

The only method is to read clear ballots. Anything else is election tampering.
uselogic

The press loved old “Walkin’ Lawton” but he did some truly evil things beyond appointing those Florida SC justices.

One of my former staunch Dem buds was in the meeting when Lawton schemed to hold FL school funding hostage just so he could raise multiple taxes. Planned to pull the old “we’ll have to close schools and fire teachers” trick. Luckily, the Republicans ingnored the press, investigated and pointed out that the slimy Lawton was hiding more than half a billion in existing funding.

My college bud switched to the Republican party after getting an upclose-and-personal of Gov. Chiles in action.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

nt
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

“[T]he circle next to the Reform party is NOT next to ?Democrat.? It is on the line between Bush and Gore (those on the left).”

That means that the staggered printing [party below name] would allow for someone “voting” for the D’s to actually have registered a vote [on the other side] for Buchanan.

If you can provide the image on the Internet, please reprint the url.
jayjayson

One thing that is always missed in this is that the national media called FL for Gore an hour before the polls closed. Because of that the state GOP started getting affidavits from people that did not vote in the pan handle becuase of the “mistake” by the media. Those affidavits could not be used until the eletion was Cert-ed and a challenge was placed. Ironiclly if Gore had let the vote be Cert-ed, then challenged it, he could have won a recount or gotten the elcetion thrown out.
But just remember one thing about all US Presidents, No President has ever been elected who did not carry their own state’s electoral votes. Gore lost Tenn by 20 points or more. So it wasn’t FL, it was Tenn that killed his election.
Jack_Savage

If Gore flips TN, he wins the election 269 electoral votes to 268, and Florida doesn’t matter.

We really dodged a bullet with that blowhard, lying idiot.
Jack_Savage

I also lived in Palm Beach County, but left before the 2000 election. Is my recollection correct that the Palm Beach Post included full size copies of the butterfly ballots in the paper before elections, and that they were easily available elsewhere?

Or in other words, wouldn’t you have to be a really stupid bastard not to vote for the right person?
jayjayson

In 2000 I was doing some work for a GOP consultant that was charged to get affidavits from voters in the pan handle. I know that he was not the only one getting the info and at best guess they had over 4000 affidavits. These were people who voted in 6 of the last 7 elections and did not vote in 2000 because they would told by the media that the elction was over. Some of the reasons were that the media wouldn’t call the eclection before the close of the polls, so they thought they had missed the closing of the polls.
The thought for getting the affidavits was to add these votes against any chalenge votes that Gore came up with.
jayjayson

WOuld now be a point where I could point out that the Civil Rights Act is Unconsitutional? It treats one state different then another so it vioilates the equal protection clause. This is why when a state fights it, the US Governemnt usually backs off. better to have the thought of power tehn have it removed all together.
oldmountainman

seem to forget or ignore the fact that he was unable to begin forming his administration till 12/13 instead of the normal 11/7. As I recall 12/13 was the day that Gore finally conceded.
JSobieski

It would not have resulted in cleansing of the system.

The administrative aspects of what you describe are monsterous, the opportunities for fraud would be substantial.

Being conservative means in part having a healthy respect for the administrative difficulties in implementing policies.

What you describe would be heaven for lawyers, and hell for everyone else.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…and the voice-over stated [by sharpton] that ~6000 voters in Miami were disenfranchised.

This would have put Gore over-the-top.
fuzzyuno

My mother worked the polls in Sarasota County for over 30 years and there was never a problem like this. Cutting through all the legal arguments, my mother said that if a voter didn’t properly complete or fill out a ballot they could get another ballot to ensure their vote counted. That is true in Minnesota also. My concern is that the hanging shads and mismarked ballots should have been considered spoiled ballots. If a voter is not intelligent enough to recognize the error they should not be allowed to vote. I watched the entire process and was dumbfounded by the Florida Supreme Courts rulling/s. They were clearly ruling as patisans and not within the law. Their rulings were absolutely a clear reminder of why Central American leaders and judges are removede from office with a gun shot rather than a ballot to send a message that voters take oaths of office seriously.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Remember the Democrat Justices of the Florida Supreme Court During Bush v. Gore?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL