Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 09, 2000, 01:56:00 PM
-
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).]
-
<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!
-
What's all the confusion?
(http://www.twc-tampa.com/mdisalle/Floridaballot.jpg)
Eagler
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Eagler! Funny! Sure glad a 'Pub posted that first...
-
<PUNT>
Here ya go 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).]
-
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".
-
lol (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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 (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
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.
-
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." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 11-10-2000).]