Encyclopedia Biermania

James Baker should be ashamed of himself, speaking for Bush he "suggested" that the Republican Florida legislature should take matters into their hands and appoint the Electors themselves referring to the US Constitution (Article II section 1):

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

But this is absurd to usurp the will of the people of Florida. But the Florida Supreme Court would not allow it based on today's ruling where they specifically quoted a portion of Florida's Constitution:

Article I, section 1, Florida Constitution:

SECTION 1. Political power.–All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

The Florida Supreme Court made its ruling this evening and I think they were right. The 42 page decision was well written and specific to the point.

Bottom line, the hand counts must be accepted as long as they are submitted by 5:00pm 11/26. The deadline was done so that there is enough time for proper appeals under Florida law while still meeting the 12/18 deadline for the Electoral College.

The law is clear that a person, candidate or party can ask for a hand count and if the local canvassing board agrees that it is needed, it MUST be done.

Another point they made (that the reporters all missed) and is specific to HOW to count the ballots was this (starting page 34):

In addition, an accurate vote count is one of the essential foundations of our democracy. The words of the Supreme Court of Illinois are particularly apt in this case:

The purpose of our election laws is to obtain a correct expression of the intent of the voters. Our courts have repeatedly held that, where the intention of the voter can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from his ballot, that intention will be given effect even though the ballot is not strictly in conformity with the law. . . . The legislature authorized the use of electronic tabulating equipment to expedite the tabulating process and to eliminate the possibility of human error in the counting process, not to create a technical obstruction which defeats the rights of qualified voters. This court should not, under the appearance of enforcing the election laws, defeat the very object which those law are intended to achieve. To invalidate a ballot which clearly reflects the voter's intent, simply because a machine cannot read it, would subordinate substance to form and promote the means at the expense of the end.
The voters here did everything which the Election Code requires when they punched the appropriate chad with the stylus. These voters should not be disfranchised where their intent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, simply because the chad they punched did not completely dislodge from the ballot. Such a failure may be attributable to the fault of the election authorities, for failing to provide properly perforated paper, or it may be the result of the voter's disability or inadvertence. Whatever the reason, where the intention of the voter can be fairly and satisfactorily ascertained, that intention should be given effect.

Pullen v. Milligan, 561 N.E.2d 585, 611 (Ill. 1990)(citations omitted).

Discuss this message.