Ballot 'precedence' already established in 1974

[Ripsnort]

Found this little tidbit, bad news for the Dems:

 

According to some Florida Democrats, the particular
              layout of ballots in Palm Beach was confusing to
              voters, and resulted in mistaken votes for Buchanan
              which were actually intended for Gore. The Florida
              judiciary has already addressed the issue of
              post-election claims about ballot confusion, and the
              precedent is unfavorable to those who want the
              election overturned.

              In the September 10, 1974, Republican primary in
              Pinellas County, several losing candidates brought a
              post-election suit against county election officials.
              (Pinellas sits on the Gulf Coast, and includes St.
              Petersburg.)

              At issue was the longest ballot in Pinellas County
              history. To save space so that every candidate and
              issue could fit on the voting machine, the election
              officials had created a ballot on which the list of
              candidates for some offices appeared on two lines. In a
              particular race, for example, the first three candidates,
              listed alphabetically, appeared on one line, and the last
              two candidates, alphabetically, appeared on the next
              line.

              A lawsuit demanding a new election was filed by
              candidates who appeared on the lower line and lost.
              The Florida trial court agreed. But on October 15,
              1974, the Second District Court of Appeal unanimously
              overturned the trial judge, and let the original election
              stand. (Nelson v. Robinson, 301 So.2d 508, Fla. Ct.
              App. 2d Dist., 1974.)

              The Court of Appeal explained:

              Keeping in mind that we are talking about a claim
              made after an election, and not one which may have
              been enforceable before, if a candidate appears on the
              ballot in such a position that he can be found by the
              voters upon a responsible study of the ballot, then such
              voters have been afforded a full, free and open
              opportunity to make their choice for or against that
              particular candidate; and the candidate himself has no
              constitutional right to a particular spot on the ballot
              which might make the voters' choice easier. His
              constitutional rights in the matter end when his name is
              placed on the ballot. Thereafter, the right is in the
              voters to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to find
              it; and as to this, it has been observed that the
              constitution intended that a voter search for the name of
              the candidate of his choice and to express his of the
              candidate of his choice without regard to others on the
              ballot. Furthermore, it assumes his ability to read and
              his intelligence to indicate his choice with the degree
              of care commensurate with the solemnity of the
              occasion.

              The Court of Appeal also cited a U.S. Supreme Court
              case in which the high Court explicitly and
              unanimously affirmed a Pennsylvania federal court
              which had ruled that an unfavorable location on the
              ballot was not a form of unconstitutional discrimination
              against a candidate. (Gilhool v. Chairman & Com'rs.,
              Philadelphia Co. Bd. of Elec., 306 F.Supp. 1202
              (E.D.Pa.1969), affluffied 397 U.S. 147 (1970).)

              In Palm Beach this year, the ballot form was approved
              beforehand by Democratic Supervisor of Elections
              Theresa LePore. This fact relates directly to the
              Florida Court of Appeal's point that "it has often been
              held that one who does not avail himself of the
              opportunity to object to irregularities in the ballot prior
              to the election may not object to them after."

             




[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Hamish]

<S!> Rip for finding That! That is one issue that bugs the hell out of me about this whole thing. I can't understand why some people found that ballot confusing. Thankfully the courts then upheld the fact that voting is an important thing, that should not be done without care.

Hamish!

[Eagler]

What's all the confusion?

   

Eagler

[Ripsnort]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Eagler! Funny!  Sure glad a 'Pub posted that first...

[CavemanJ]

<PUNT>

Here ya go Nash

[Nash]

Thanks Cavy - what's this supposed to mean?

----edit---
Or wait.... no, I know what your saying. No - this does nothing. If anything it *proves* that a revote is possible. It was struck down here, but that doen't make it out of the bounds of law. In fact - that the courts heard this case in the 1st place means that yes, a re-vote IS possible, and DOES fall within the bounds of litigation.

Anybody care to dispute (dispassionately) that the ballot itself (yes, even approved by a Democrat)was illegal?



[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Dinger]

Worse than that, there is a fundamental disanalogy here:
the "precedent" in question refers to the inability to locate a name on the ballot.  The issue here is whether the corresponding hole was clear.  Nobody disputes the ability to find the name (which was the 1974 case). Therefore, this preceding case is not controlling.

Now what all this comes down to in reality is whether we allow the vote to be decided by a bunch of idiots who can't read a ballot, or we give the election to someone who can't get a plurality, let alone a majority, and only squeaks by in the electoral college on the power of a marginal victory in a questionably executed election.

Either way it sucks.  From now on, "Presidential Election Day" shall be called "Bohica Day".

[Nash]

lol  

[LJK Raubvogel]

Nash, we have a little thing called "legal precendent." Judges are very reluctant to rule differently on the same type of case that one of their predecessors already decided. Not saying that it nevers happens, but legal precendent is one of the building blocks of the Judicial system. I would imagine that it would take a court much higher than the Flordia Circuit Court of Appeals to have the cojones to rule differently.

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Nash]

You say that like you think I have no understanding of what a legal precedent means. I would say that this STILL doesn't negate the fact that a re-vote is possible, and I further invite you to see Dinger's post, above.

[LJK Raubvogel]

I wasn't implying that at all Nash, just a little sarcasm. The circus going on in Florida has me a little weary of the whole process.

The law was followed, mistakes were made. Ignorance of the laws are not an excuse. The voters (and the Democratic Party) had ample time to oppose the ballot, but did not.

I read Dinger's post, and it only reinforces my thoughts. I thought this line was humorous though.

" Furthermore, it assumes his ability to read and
his intelligence to indicate his choice with the degree
of care commensurate with the solemnity of the
occasion."  


------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 11-10-2000).]