Florida Common Law And Election \"Irregularities\" -- From Red Rock Eater News Service\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nFlorida Common Law And Election \"Irregularities\"
\r\n -- From Red Rock Eater News Service<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nPresented By Phil Agre<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\n[Here are a couple of messages about legal aspects of the irregularities\r\nin the Florida elections. Reformatted to 70 columns.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAnd here are a few more relevant URL's:<\/p>
\r\n\r\nCounty Had Ballot Problems Before
\r\n http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/aponline\/politics\/AP-ELN-Palm-Beach-Elections.html<\/p>
\r\n\r\nEverything You Need to Know About the Florida Recount
\r\n http:\/\/www.salon.com\/politics\/feature\/2000\/11\/11\/tallahassee\/<\/p>
\r\n\r\nLocal Officials Say System Fell Apart on Election Day
\r\n http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2000\/11\/11\/politics\/11PALM.html<\/p>
\r\n\r\nThe complete set of URL's on the elections that I've sent to RRE can\r\nbe found here:
\r\n\r\n http:\/\/dlis.gseis.ucla.edu\/people\/pagre\/florida.html<\/p>
\r\n\r\nPlease send me further useful URL's, but can I please ask you to use\r\nthe format of the three URL's above? Thanks a lot.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAlso, can someone please prepare a neat list of URL's for the regional\r\nnewspapers for all of the states other than Florida where controversial\r\nvote-counting action is going on? That'd be Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa,\r\nWisconsin, and (less importantly) New Hampshire and Maine. An awful\r\nlot of people are following this story in fine detail, and the regional\r\npapers are reporting a lot of detail that's not in the national papers.\r\nAgain, I'd appreciate if you could use the format above. Thanks a lot.]<\/p>
\r\n\r\n=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\r\nThis message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the \"redirect\" option. For information about RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http:\/\/dlis.gseis.ucla.edu\/people\/pagre\/rre.html
\r\n=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<\/p>
\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\n=====================================================
\r\n Yale Law Students CAMPAIGN FOR A LEGAL ELECTION
\r\n Yale Law School 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511
\r\n (203) 432-4888 spin@pantheon.yale.edu
\r\n=====================================================<\/p>
\r\n\r\nFLORIDA COMMON LAW AND ELECTION \"IRREGULARITIES\"
\r\nThe Yale Law School Campaign for a Legal Election<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAccording to a CNN on-line report, Florida \"Judges have the discretion\r\nto invalidate elections and impose lesser remedies if they agree with\r\nplaintiffs that there were improprieties on Election Day.\"(1) That\r\nstatement is precisely wrong. Such judges have zero discretion - they\r\nare required to declare the election void.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nThat bright-line rule comes from the Florida State Supreme Court's\r\ndecision in Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board, 707 So.2d\r\n720 (Fla. 1998). Although the court in that case validated the\r\nelection in question (which hinged on the legitimacy of the absentee\r\nvoting process, a substantial difference from the Presidential\r\ncontest), it made clear that the law in Florida requires judges\r\nto void elections in which there is doubt about the true will of\r\nthe voters. There are several principles in that decision worth\r\nhighlighting:<\/p>
\r\n\r\n1) ELECTION IRREGULARITIES ARE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED IN COURT.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\"It appears that the validity of an election . . . is an issue of\r\ngreat public importance whose resolution is required by the high court\r\n. . . .\"(2)<\/p>
\r\n\r\n Note the use of the word \"required\"; we are not talking about whether\r\nit would be in the best judgment of all concerned, or whether it is\r\npolitically responsible or wise for either candidate to support a\r\nlegal challenge. The law in Florida demands that a court resolve\r\nthe issue when there is a legitimate concern as to which candidate\r\nthe voters have chosen. When people like Karen Hughes, Bush's\r\nCommunications Director, utter remarks like \"We certainly hope the\r\nDemocrats would stop this talk of endless legal battles,\" and \"I hope\r\nthe vice president and his campaign officials would think through\r\ntheir responsibility to this country and to the process,\" she is\r\narguing against the rule of law.(3)<\/p>
\r\n\r\n2) THIS IS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, NOT CANDIDATES.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n \"The real parties in interest here . . . are the voters. They are\r\npossessed of the ultimate interest and it is they whom we must give\r\nprimary consideration.\"(4)<\/p>
\r\n\r\n Al Gore and George W. Bush are not the people whose rights may have\r\nbeen violated (although one of them will be very sore when this is\r\nall over). The thousands of voters who were confused by the ballot\r\nand either voted for the wrong candidate or had their ballots thrown\r\nout are the ones who have been deprived of that most basic right\r\nin a democracy, the right to vote. They are the people we should be\r\nconcerned about, whether they meant to vote for Al Gore or George Bush\r\nor someone else.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n3) THE JUDGE WHO HEARS THIS CASE WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO VOID\r\nTHE ELECTION.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\"[I]f a court finds substantial noncompliance with statutory election\r\nprocedures and also makes a factual determination that reasonable\r\ndoubt exists as to whether a certified election expressed the will\r\nof the voters, then the court . . . is to void the contested election,\r\neven in the absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing.\"(5)<\/p>
\r\n\r\nAs with the first point, there is no discretion here - note the\r\nlanguage - a judge \"is to void\", not \"may void.\" According to a\r\npolitical scientist quoted by CNN, \"It would take a tremendously\r\ncourageous judge to take responsibility for [voiding an election].\r\nThat judge or that panel of judges would be taking responsibility for\r\ndeciding who is the next president of the United States.\"(6) Although\r\nwhichever judge (or panel of judges) hears this case will face a\r\ngreat deal of political pressure, and indeed must be courageous enough\r\nto withstand it, he or she (or they) has little choice in the matter.\r\nThe application of the law requires that this election be voided, for\r\ntwo reasons:<\/p>
\r\n\r\nA) THERE HAS BEEN CLEAR, SUBSTANTIAL NON-COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA\r\nELECTION LAW AS REGARDS THE LAYOUT OF THE BALLOT.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nFlorida law clearly states that the ballot punch holes must be to the\r\nright of the candidates' names, and that the Democrat be listed as the\r\nsecond candidate on the ballot.(7) The law exists precisely to prevent\r\nvoter confusion. In Palm Beach, however, the holes were to the\r\nleft of some names, and the one to punch for Gore was the third one\r\ndown. That elected Democrats may have okayed this ballot is totally\r\nirrelevant; again, we are not concerned with the rights of political\r\nparties or candidates, but rather with the rights of voters.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nB) THERE \"EXISTS REASONABLE DOUBT\" AS TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE\r\nVOTERS.<\/p>
\r\n\r\nThis is a no-brainer. The election hinges on 327 votes. According\r\nto CNN, Patrick Buchanan received 3,407 votes in Palm Beach County, a\r\nnumber even he admits is too large. \"I don't doubt a number of those\r\nballots, of those votes that were cast for me, probably were intended\r\nfor Vice President Gore,\" he confessed to Larry King. Considering\r\nthat Gore received 62 percent of the Palm Beach Vote overall, there\r\nis little doubt that the confused votes for Buchanan could have swung\r\nthe election to Gore.(8) Add to that the discounted 19,000+ ballots,\r\nand there is simply no question about whether reasonable doubt exists.\r\nHuge doubt exists.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n Given the two clear facts - that there was substantial non-compliance\r\nthat resulted in doubt as to the expressed will of voters, the Florida\r\njudges who hear this case have no choice but to void the election.\r\nIn so-doing, they will not be deciding \"who is the next president of\r\nthe United States,\" because until the re-vote is counted, we cannot\r\nknow who that will be (and, given the network election-night fiascos,\r\nwe should all be wary of any predicted outcomes). Rather, they will\r\nbe affirming the voting rights of the citizens of the Great State of\r\nFlorida.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n\r\nNotes<\/p>
\r\n\r\n1. Reported at:\r\nhttp:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2000\/LAW\/11\/09\/election.remedies.florida.pol\/index.html <\/p>
\r\n\r\n2. Beckstrom, 707 So.2d at 724. This statement is made in the\r\ncontext of a finding of gross negligence, but no fraud, with regard to\r\nabsentee ballots. Gross negligence is later defined by the court to\r\nmean \"negligence that is so pervasive that it thwarts the will of the\r\npeople.\" Id. at 725. Surely, the validity of an election called into\r\nquestion by gross negligence at the actual voting booths is equally an\r\nissue of great public importance whose resolution is required by the\r\nhigh court. . . .\" Id. at 724.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n3. Reported at:\r\nhttp:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2000\/ALLPOLITICS\/stories\/11\/10\/election.president.03\/index.html<\/p>
\r\n\r\n4. Id. at 724 (internal quotes and citation omitted).<\/p>
\r\n\r\n5. Beckstrom, 707 So.2d at 725.<\/p>
\r\n\r\n6. Reported at\r\nhttp:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2000\/LAW\/11\/09\/election.remedies.florida.pol\/index.html#<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p><\/li>
<\/p><\/li>
<\/p><\/li>
<\/p><\/li>
<\/p><\/li>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/dlis.gseis.ucla.edu\/people\/pagre\/florida.html","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"The latest from Red Rock Eater News Service. Messages about legal aspects of the irregularities in the Florida elections from the Yale Law Students Campaign For A Legal Election. More links.","numcomment":2,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2000\/11\/rre_f7.htm","filesize":"17.1 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2000\/11\/4530.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":4532,"heading":"Yale Law School education","article":"The Yale Law Students write a pretty good law review type memo (considering its brevity). They will find out, though, that they are not being taught anything worth knowing if they believe judges consider themselves bound by the quoted language of opinions. There are probably only about 1,000,000 appellate cases that do not follow literal language of precedents. To believe that a court cannot \"distinguish\" the precedents and refuse to void an election is just plain ignorant, legally speaking, of course. Whether a court voids the election (assuming the facts found approximate what we've heard in the media) will be an ultimately subjective decision, guided by -- but not controlled by -- the precedents. Still, I was young once and believed that stuff.","author":"Socrates","parent_id":4530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2000-11-12 20:52:13","modified":"2000-11-12 21:04:18","fileurl":""},{"id":4533,"heading":"Yale Law Students, cont.","article":"Pardon, forgot to add that while the students note that the court affirmed a refusal to void an election, they do not note that therefore every statement of when an election can be voided is dicta (not binding precedent). And courts have no hesitation in calling there own speculations dicta and not to be blindly followed.","author":"Socrates","parent_id":4530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2000-11-12 21:04:18","modified":"2000-11-12 21:55:05","fileurl":""}]}