[Update 12/28/10: Federal judge dismisses Miller’s complaint. Details now here…]
“We want the end result of this legal action to be for the people of Alaska to not only have full faith in the outcome of this race, but a confidence in the manner in which elections will be conducted in our state in the future,” Alaska’s “Tea Party”-supported, Sarah Palin-endorsed GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, Joe Miller said in a statement today calling for “fairness and transparency” in the election process, issued after filing an amended complaint in federal court. His statement concludes with the simple sentiment: “Election integrity is vital.”
Miller has decided to press on in his election contest against the state’s Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell and their Division of Elections (DoE), as overseen by Treadwell, by filing a Substitute Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief in U.S. District Court in Alaska today. The filing comes after resounding losses in state court and — if the state’s hand-count of write-in ballots and the Diebold optical-scanner tallies of all the other ballots are to be believed — to Republican write-in candidate Sen. Lisa Murkowski in November’s general election for the U.S. Senate. As the unofficial state count now stands, Murkowski reportedly defeated Miller (and Democratic candidate Scott McAdams) by more than 10,000 votes.
In the statement (posted in full at end of this article) Miller explains that his team has decided to forgo challenging Murkowski’s official certification as the winner, allowing her to be seated in the U.S. Senate on January 5th.
“The integrity of the election is vital and ultimately the rule of law must be our standard. Nevertheless, I have also decided to withdraw our opposition to the certification of the election, ensuring that Alaska will have its full delegation seated when the 112th Congress convenes next month.” he said, “This decision will allow Alaskans to focus on bringing fairness and transparency to our elections process without distraction of the certification issue.”
But Miller’s decision to drop his challenge to Murkowski’s seating may prove to be a fatal blow to his case — at least if precedent set by Republicans in Congress some years ago, ironically enough, is any indication. But more on that below.
After winning the GOP nomination against Murkowski, and then reportedly losing to her unprecedented write-in bid in November, Miller originally filed his election contest in federal court in November. U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline subsequently responded by sending the case down to state court for initial adjudication on relevant issues of state law. Late last month, Beistline temporarily halted state certification of the race until those issues were decided, and last week the state’s Supreme Court rejected Miller’s appeal, siding with the state, on all counts.
Beistline had given Miller until today to re-file his amended complaint in federal court. His filing now includes just three counts asserting violations of the U.S. Constitution’s “Election Clause” and “Equal Protection Clause” as based on both the DoE’s liberal interpretation of state law in counting write-in ballots, as well as the disparate weight the hand-count of those ballots was afforded, versus those tallied by Diebold optical-scanners in the case of “pre-printed” candidates…
Miller’s amended complaint [PDF] argues DoE Director Gail Fenumiai “ignored the rules for counting write-in ballots that the Alaska legislature clearly and unambiguously set forth in state law, and instead adopted her own alternate — and highly subjective — approach.”
That argument was rejected in the state Supreme Court’s recent ruling and, prior to that, by a lower court judge who found that case law precedent determined the DoE’s liberal interpretation of “voter intent” was in compliance with state election code.
The section of the law in question (AS 15.15.360) states “A vote for a write-in candidate … shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.”
The statute further goes on to note: “The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.”
Nonetheless, the AK Supremes upheld the lower court’s liberal interpretation of the word “appears” in allowing the DoE’s discretion in counting as valid some 8,000 votes in favor of Murkowski, despite misspellings and other strict deficiencies (such as ovals not filled in), as challenged by Miller’s team.
Miller is now arguing the state’s “change in the rules for counting votes after voting has concluded raises the specter of manipulation, favoritism, and fundamental unfairness.” His federal suit argues the state legislature has the sole power to determine the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” as per Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The state executive branch, which oversees the DoE and which granted Fenumiai the power to determine “voter intent”, may have no role in overriding the legislature according to the Constitution, his motion states.
Moreover, Miller argues the DoE’s “voter intent” standard is “unconstitutionality vague” and therefore in violation of the 14th Amendment’s “Equal Protection Clause” as cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000’s Bush v. Gore decision.
“The Equal Protection Clause requires state officials to establish much more ‘specific standards’ and ‘uniform rules” in order to prevent ‘the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots’ to vary ‘within a single county from one count team to another.’,” contends Miller’s legal team. “Defendants have adopted the same type of policy that the Supreme Court already has declared constitutionally inadequate. … This quixotic quest resulted in the arbitrary and disparate treatment of write-in ballots in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.”
“Although the Division repeatedly declared that the Director would be counting write-in ballots based on what she subjectively perceived to be the ‘voter’s intent,’ the Division never established or announced any written rules, guidelines, policies, or procedures by which the Director would attempt to divine ‘voter intent’ or apply that nebulous standard,” Miller states in the federal complaint.
Indeed, as The BRAD BLOG noted back in September, after Murkowski declared her intention to run as a write-in candidate, the DoE’s announcement of what seemed exceptionally vague standards for determining which votes would be valid, was likely to lead to a post-election mess.
Coupled with Alaska’s oft-failed, unreliable, easily-manipulated Diebold op-scan systems, as we noted at the time, the entire affair seemed to be shaping up as a recipe for disaster — just like the one Joe Miller is now contesting.
‘Automated Tally Systems’ v. Human Hand-counts
Nonetheless, even if the approximately 8,000 write-in votes for Murkowski challenged by Miller based on “lenient” or “vague” standards for determining “voter intent” were tossed out, the GOP’s nominee would still trail the incumbent Republican Senator by some 2,000 votes in the state’s tally. That tally, Miller argues, is also tainted because ballots cast for pre-printed, non-write-in candidates were examined for validity only by the state’s Diebold optical-scan systems.
In the process, ballots determined as “invalid” by the automated tally system were examined again for possible inclusion in Murkowski’s write-in vote total, but not for pre-printed candidates. That, Miller argues, gave write-in votes a “second bite at the apple” in violation of the 14th Amendment as, again, cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.
The state used “two different procedures and policies for determining ballots’ validity,” which, Miller’s argues, was determined by the SCOTUS in 2000 to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution:
Miller argues that the DoE’s “discriminatory policy…gave a substantial advantage to write-in candidates” when the state “accepted as valid and counted write-in votes that automated tally machines had rejected.”
“[W]hereas write-in votes that automated tally machines had rejected were given a ‘second bite at the apple’ to be accepted as valid and counted, votes for preprinted candidates were not.” That policy, he says, “gave a substantial, unfair, and illegal advantage to write-in candidates such as Lisa Murkowski, and unconstitutionally discriminated against both candidates whose names were pre-printed on the ballot, such as Plaintiff Miller, and voters who unsuccessfully attempted to cast ballots for them.”
“A person whose vote in the race for U.S. Senate was rejected by an automated tally machine could have that vote counted if they had attempted to vote for a write-in candidate, but not if they attempted to vote for a candidate whose name was pre-printed on the ballot,” the motion argues.
Those numbers could be enough to make up the difference in the results, says Miller, if the federal courts find for him on all counts:
“Such arbitrary and disparate treatment constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as interpreted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 3 105 (2000),” the motion avers.
Not mentioned in Miller’s federal case this time, though noted in previous statements and legal filings, is the state’s horrible record of vote counting on Diebold optical-systems as we reported in some detail back in November when describing Miller as wise for seeking a hand-count of all ballots cast in the state.
An Unmentioned, But Fatal Constitutional Issue for Miller?
There is one other Constitutional issue that Miller may soon run up against now that he’s decided to not challenge Murkowski’s seating in the U.S. Senate. And it’s one that the Republican Party themselves set a disturbing precedent on back in 2006, ironically enough.
Long time readers of The BRAD BLOG may recall our lengthy coverage of the disastrous 2006 special election in California’s 50th U.S. Congressional District (San Diego) to fill the seat vacated by jailed Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham. In that contest, after violations of the law had been discovered in the use of San Diego’s Diebold optical-scan system, the Republican candidate was hastily certified and sworn into the U.S. House by the then-GOP majority, even as more than 50,000 votes still remained uncounted by anybody, and as an election contested was filed in California.
As the case made its way into court, House Republicans would ultimately intervene to dispute the right for the contest to be challenged at all in court.
Citing Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution — the section following the one cited in the first count of Miller’s federal suit — the Republican-leadership of the U.S. House Administration Committee sent a letter [PDF] to the CA judge in the case, arguing that neither CA voters nor the state courts had jurisdiction to contest the election once the candidate had already been sworn into the U.S. House.
“The Court should dismiss this action,” Paul Vinovich, Republican counsel to the House Admin Committee wrote to Superior Court Judge Yuri Hoffman at the time. “State courts do not have jurisdiction to decide an action contesting the election of a member of the United States House of Representatives. That power is textually committed to the House of Representatives itself by the Constitution, a commitment that has been recognized by the Supreme Court.”
“The United States Constitution unambiguously states that ‘Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its Members,'” Vinovich argued, quoting Article I, section 5. “As a result, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives ‘the authority ‘to determine the facts and apply the appropriate rules of law, and, finally, to render a judgment which is beyond the authority of any other tribunal to review.'”
As the Republican House had chosen to seat Brian Bilbray, the Republican candidate in the CA-50 election, by the time the case was argued in court, the issue was out of the hands of the judiciary, and firmly in the Constitutional control of the Congress, as Vinovich argued on behalf of the GOP House.
On the strength of the Republicans’ assertion, the judge dismissed the case, finding the contestant’s complaint to be moot.
If Sen. Lisa Murkowski is seated in the U.S. Senate on January 5th, as currently scheduled, and as Miller has now said he will not contest, it’s possible that the federal courts may also find his case to be moot, and then tossed on similar grounds to the 2006 contest. In that case, there would be no further counting of ballots by any means, and the results of votes tallied only by computer systems made by Diebold, Inc. — and never checked for validity by human beings — would once again rule the day.
Joe Miller’s complete statement issued with his federal court filing today, follows in full below…
Federal Case to Move Forward
Fairbanks, Alaska. December 26, 2010 — Joe Miller, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, will not oppose state certification of the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. For the sake of the integrity of the election, Miller will go forward with the federal suit, which was filed last month, but required a final determination by the Alaska state court to proceed further. He will be filing a motion in federal court to stay the post certification election contest timeline until after the federal case has concluded.
“After careful consideration and seeking the counsel of people whose opinion I respect and trust, I have decided that the federal case must go forward. The integrity of the election is vital and ultimately the rule of law must be our standard. Nevertheless, I have also decided to withdraw our opposition to the certification of the election, ensuring that Alaska will have its full delegation seated when the 112th Congress convenes next month.” Miller added, “This decision will allow Alaskans to focus on bringing fairness and transparency to our elections process without distraction of the certification issue.”
In its court filings, the Miller legal team pointed out several issues that require further review including: whether the U.S. Constitution’s Election Clause was violated by ignoring the legislature’s mandatory provisions for write-in candidates; whether the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause was violated by the different vote counting standards that were applied, dependent on the candidate in question; and other issues such as at least hundreds of felons voting and at least hundreds of ballots being filled out by a handful of people.
Miller stated, “We want the end result of this legal action to be for the people of Alaska to not only have full faith in the outcome of this race, but a confidence in the manner in which elections will be conducted in our state in the future. Election integrity is vital.”
Brad, I’m straying off topic here. This isn’t exactly about election integrity but about Youtube view-count integrity. Youtube is apparently fudging the view count at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ&feature=player_embedded on that Juicemedia rap song about Wikileaks. Et tu, YouTube?
Yes, you are off topic here, Adam. Way. (We posted the video recently, you could have mentioned this there.) That said, what is the evidence for your claim? Doesn’t seem you offered any.
Yes, I should have mentioned it on the video article, sorry about that. The evidence is on that YouTube thread link itself. Commenters have been posting the view count they see. Sometimes the view count goes down (?!). Surprised YouTube didn’t just delete the evidence…
In the Bush Gore election the Supremes decided not to do a recount, what should be so different here? It is amazing that Miller denounces the feds to win votes, then goes running to them for a recount? Laughable. Where is the GOP in all of this?
PNeisman in #4,
“In the Bush Gore election the Supremes decided not to do a recount, what should be so different here?”
The difference is what has the Senate said on the Alaska race.
As Brad points out (thread 3353), in CA-50 case, the court noted that the House decision to set Bilbary was final, thus any recount is moot.
“In other words, if this was a sports game, it was as if the Speaker of the House terminated the “game” and declared victory with something like ten minutes left on the clock, instead of playing this closely contested game until the clock ran out as we would all expect.”
I believe the same can be said about Bush in 2000. Even though Bush was already the certified winner by the time that the USSC received Bush v. Gore, the Florida Legislature was already in the process of taking back the election and again certifying the election for Bush. A recount, especially an unconstitutional partial recount of the spoiled ballots, would be moot.
As far as I know, I haven’t heard anything that says that the Senate would only seat Murkowski. If not, I would think the courts would allow a recount if they found it to be within the law.
Mark da Shark @ 5:
Just to clarify a few points (my fault for the lack of clarity, since I summarized, perhaps, too quickly in the already too-long article above). You said:
The House decision wasn’t “final”. It could still have been challenged under the Federal Contested Elections Act, but that is heard in the Congress, not in the courts. In other words, once the Congress has seated the candidate in question, only they have the right to determine if they are properly seated or not. Not the courts. Not the voters. etc. At least that’s what the GOP House Admin attorneys argued to the CA-50 judge (successfully) in 2006, using Article 1, section 5 to do so, as I describe quickly in the article above.
Not at all. Completely different situation. The argument made by the GOP House in the CA-50 case was that Congress had the sole power to determine seating, as per the Constitution (Art. 1, sec 5) once a member had been sworn in. That issue doesn’t arise at all in the case of a Presidential election.
Until the Supreme Court’s unprecedented (and horrible) ruling (a ruling so horrible that even they said it should not be used as precedent later), the selection of electors at the state level was left up to the states, not to the Big Government arm of the federal Supreme Court. Had SCOTUS not interfered to stop the ballot counting, all ballots in the state would have been counted, appropriately, by the state, and electors would have been seated (for Al Gore, as all evidence indicates).
Hope that clarifies your confusion, Mark.
Brad in #6,
Sorry, but it appears that you are very confused.
“Not at all. Completely different situation. The argument made by the GOP House in the CA-50 case was that Congress had the sole power to determine seating, as per the Constitution (Art. 1, sec 5) once a member had been sworn in. That issue doesn’t arise at all in the case of a Presidential election.”
It is EXACTLY the same because the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to determine legal slates of electors. In turn, Congress has laid out the process in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (codified as 3 U.S.C. section 1-16).
Justice Breyer discusses the process in his dissent of Bush v. Gore.
“Until the Supreme Court’s unprecedented (and horrible) ruling (a ruling so horrible that even they said it should not be used as precedent later), the selection of electors at the state level was left up to the states, not to the Big Government arm of the federal Supreme Court.”
Contrary to your argument, the USSC did not send a slate of judicial appointed electors. The facts show us that the slate of Bush electors were appointed, with the signature of the state’s executive, on Nov 26, 2000. Bush v. Gore wasn’t decided until Dec 12, 2000.
“Had SCOTUS not interfered to stop the ballot counting, all ballots in the state would have been counted, appropriately, by the state,”
As I have proven on this blog before, this is false. I posted a link to the hearing before the USSC, where Gore’s own attorney noted that this was a recount of approximately 60,000 votes. That is about 1/3 of the “spoiled ballot” and less than ONE PERCENT of the ballots cast.
I asked you before to explain why you believed that a recount of just ONE PERCENT is the same as a full recount, you declined to answer.
“and electors would have been seated (for Al Gore, as all evidence indicates).”
No. All evidence points to the fact that Gore didn’t have the votes needed to remove Bush’s electors that were sent on Nov. 26.
Even if Gore “wins” the partial recount, the partisan Republicans in the House were not going to support Gore based a recount that they believed was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
A partisan vote in the Republican controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate leaves Gore out in the cold. There would not be enough votes to remove the electors certified on Nov 26, 2000.
“Hope that clarifies your confusion, Mark.”
Considering that you didn’t even know about the 12th Amendment, you haven’t clarified a thing. I don’t know where you get your information, but you really need to find a better source.
Good god, Mark. You are like the 9/11 folks who can’t discuss anything but, no matter what the issue. Your obsession with re-litigating Bush v. Gore here, and what seems to be the imaginary pissing match you’re in with me is so frickin’ dull. Nonetheless, you make some absurd (and obnoxious) charges and personal attacks here (again), so, unfortunately, I have to at least speak to some of the most ridiculous.
You seem, essentially, to be arguing in your latest comment that because the Rightwingers in Congress wanted Bush to win, they wouldn’t have accepted any other result in seating electors, no matter whether all ballots in FL2000 were actually counted there, no matter what standard was used to count them. Therefore, allowing FL to count their own votes in a Presidential election was a moot point, because the 12th Amendment allows Congress to seat electors, and Republicans in Congress already decided who they wanted to seat (no matter whether the voters actually felt different about it.)
In short, bending to the partisan will of anti-democratic (small “d”) thugs and hooligans, as far as who should be our President, is just something we should suck up and accept.
That appears to be the way you are stretching my argument that the GOP House’s invocation of Article 1, sec. 5 to help toss out the CA-50 election case by saying the member is already seated, and now only a complaint filed under the Federal Contested Elections Act (which are heard by Congress) can change that, so the court challenge is moot, is “EXACTLY the same” as what happened in Bush v. Gore.
Um, kind of a stretch there, champ. But if you’d like to see it that way, because it makes you feel as if you won the pissing match, or (more likely) it helps you to justify an unjustifiable usurpation of power by the U.S. Supreme Court in violation of all this country and it’s Constitution stand for, in order to install George W. Bush as “President” in 2000 against the will of the people, then so be it. Most importantly, if it will help move you on to any other topic in the world, I’ll take it for that reason as well!
Brad in #8,
“You seem, essentially, to be arguing in your latest comment that because the Rightwingers in Congress wanted Bush to win, they wouldn’t have accepted any other result in seating electors, no matter whether all ballots in FL2000 were actually counted there, no matter what standard was used to count them.Therefore, allowing FL to count their own votes in a Presidential election was a moot point, because the 12th Amendment allows Congress to seat electors, and Republicans in Congress already decided who they wanted to seat (no matter whether the voters actually felt different about it.)”
BINGO, you finally get it. The USSC did not even have to accept Bush v. Gore, and Gore still LOSES.
The 12th Amendment gives Congress the exclusive right to determine legal slates of electors. If Congress cannot decide, then those sent with the signature shall be the legal slate.
Bush was award Florida Electors, with Jeb Bush’s signature, on 11/26/2000. End of Gore’s chances to win.
I am not trying to have a pissing match with you. The point is we can’t have legal discussion if you do not give us the correct facts. Saying the USSC appointed Bush is wrong. They have no such power.
What kind of bizzaro-world do you live in, Mark? Had they counted the votes, and the results made Gore the winner, Gore would have been the winner. They couldn’t just go stick Bush in there after that. They practically did that by forcing the vote counting to stop, but not quite as egregious as boldy sticking the wrong person in there after the vote counting shows otherwise. What kind of a fucknut are you?
Chris in #10,
“What kind of bizzaro-world do you live in, Mark?”
I live in reality. You might want to give it a try.
3 U.S.C. section 15:
“But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”
That is an important law to understand. While the Democrats held the US Senate (50/50 Gore as tie breaker), they did not have the House.
“Had they counted the votes, and the results made Gore the winner, Gore would have been the winner.”
Had they counted the ballots as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, and Gore would have “won” that recount, he still can’t win the Electoral College.
He has two major problems. The first was the fact that the Florida Legislature was in the process of voiding the election.
The second problem was that Bush had already been certified as the winner. That certification came with the signature of the state’s executive.
Do you really think that the PARTISAN Republicans, the PARTISAN Republicans that we have been told over and over again for the last decade would steal an election at a drop of the hat, would have supported Gore? REALLY?
“They couldn’t just go stick Bush in there after that.”
In 1984, the Democratic controlled US House disqualified 21% of the votes in Indiana’s 8th District race. The Republicans claimed that they did so as to steal this Congressional seat.
If the Democrats could go to such lengths to protect this seat, why can’t the PARTISANS Republicans use these same types of laws to get their revenge?
“They practically did that by forcing the vote counting to stop, but not quite as egregious as boldy sticking the wrong person in there after the vote counting shows otherwise.”
If we were taking about a real recount, a FAIR recount, then you would have a great point. But of course, we are not. We are taking about a bogus recount that would not have proven a real winner.
“What kind of a fucknut are you?”
An educated one.
They had to stop the counting before they found out that Gore had actually won. The public outcry would have been deafening had they tried to seat Bush after finding Gore was actually the winner. There is no way in hell that they could have gotten away with that, hence the stopping of the votes. Some things are just so egregious that the public would not allow it to happen. You are trying to say that once the count is certified, there is no way to prove that it was inaccurate and undo it. Bullshit. I would have been at my representative’s door.
I missed this exchange earlier, so sorry for jumping in late, but Chris Hooten, please mind our rules for commenting here. Your “fucknut” comment, as I’m sure you know, was in violation of our personal attacks rule. So please don’t do that. Thanks.
Mark da Shark – I’d have to agree with Chris, strongly, that if you think folks would have sat by and allowed Republicans in the House to give the Presidency to someone who they all knew did NOT win (after a recount, any legit recount, your “fairness” thing is nonsense), then I agree with Chris that you’re deluded.
Not gonna relitigate the 1984 contest either, but a) that was a House race w/out the kind of focus a Presidential race obviously has from the populace and media, and b) the circumstances under which it happened (and which you, again forwarding outrageously partisan spin, referring to ‘Democrats disqualifying 21% of the votes’) were completely different.
With SCOTUS simply shutting down the count of actual votes and, with no recourse that can be had against them, Bush was installed. Had the House tried to do that — particularly after a public and transparent count showing that Gore won — the story would have ended quite differently had the GOP tried to pull that nonsense in the House and I suspect even they wouldn’t have had the cajones to do it. (Though no doubt they’d have used your “the count wasn’t fair!” nonsense, since they usually do when they don’t get their way. See, for example, the largest and most transparent hand recount in the history of our country in MN in 2008 where only the worst of partisans could possibly consider that process to have been anything but fair to all parties. But, of course, some due. See Kansas’ new and horrific Sec. of State, Kris Kobach for example.)
Chris in #12,
From Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion, Bush v. Gore, 12/12/2000:
“But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter’s intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as “hanging†or “dimpled†chads).”
*****
“They had to stop the counting before they found out that Gore had actually won. The public outcry would have been deafening had they tried to seat Bush after finding Gore was actually the winner.”
Again, you seem to be missing the point. BOGUS recounts are meaningless. So what, a partial recount, were identically marked ballots DO NOT mean the same the thing shows that Gore “won”? Big deal. That was not going to change the minds of the PARTISAN Republicans.
“There is no way in hell that they could have gotten away with that, hence the stopping of the votes.”
Why didn’t the recount that you defend include all the ballots? All the spoiled ballots? All the LEGAL overseas ballots that were wrongfully thrown out? Why don’t identially marked ballots mean the same thing?
This is all the political cover that the PARTISAN Republicans needed.
“Some things are just so egregious that the public would not allow it to happen. You are trying to say that once the count is certified, there is no way to prove that it was inaccurate and undo it.”
No, I am not saying that there is “is no way to prove that it was inaccurate”, I have said several times that Gore should have asked for a full and fair recount under the proper Florida Stature.
What I am saying is that a BOGUS recount would not have saved Gore.
“Bullshit. I would have been at my representative’s door.”
Where you at his door when Bush’s electors were accepted by Congress in Jan. of 2001?
Brad in #13,
“Mark da Shark – I’d have to agree with Chris, strongly, that if you think folks would have sat by and allowed Republicans in the House to give the Presidency to someone who they all knew did NOT win (after a recount, any legit recount, your “fairness” thing is nonsense), then I agree with Chris that you’re deluded.”
:Democrats disqualifying 21% of the votes:
Brad, I contend that the Republicans would not have given up the seat to Gore UNTIL there was a cleaner than clean recount. That was never going to happen in that election (no need for me to again explain how Gore did not follow Fla. Code).
“again forwarding outrageously partisan spin, referring to ‘Democrats disqualifying 21% of the votes”
Sorry Brad, but facts are facts. 21% of the ballots were disqualified by the recount held by the Democratic controlled US House.
“With SCOTUS simply shutting down the count of actual votes and, with no recourse that can be had against them, Bush was installed.”
1) So what, the court shut down a bogus recount. That recount would not have saved Gore.
2) Just because Gore had no where to go in the courts, does not mean he did not have any recourse. He still can file a challenge under 3 U.S.C. section 15. In fact, such a challenge was filed, and it failed.
Further, Gore still had the problem of the Florida Legislature. They were going to throw out this election, and reaffirm Bush’s electors.
3) The court did not, and cannot install a President. Bush was already the certified winner, thus there was no remedy available to Gore from any court to stop Congress from seating Bush.
“Though no doubt they’d have used your “the count wasn’t fair!” nonsense…”
Nonsense? As I cited in #14 (from Justice Souter), identical ballots didn’t mean the same thing. Is that fair?
As an example, if swinging door chads are legal votes, then aren’t they legal votes for both Bush and Gore? Of course they are. But you are saying that is “nonsense”. If one table wants to count all these type of ballots that is fine, but if another table does not, that is fine too?
What if it was recounting all the swinging doors chads for Bush, and throwing out the swinging door chads for Gore? Would you agree to that?
Again, it is not enough to have a recount, it has to be a FAIR recount. There is a difference, BIG difference.