1. If legal “overvotes” according to the
2. The entire Bush margin
was made up of handcounted votes that Katherie Harris allowed for Republican counties but not for
Democratic counties.
3. Republican election
officials knowingly purged thousands of legal minority voters, for no valid
reason other than minority voters were highly likely to vote for Gore.
4. Republican election
officials did not process large numbers of new voters registered by black
universities and colleges and by the Florida Motor Voter program, voters much more
likely to vote for Gore.
5. Over a thousand votes
of the Bush margin were made up of votes that were illegally allowed by election officials to be
manipulated by Republican operatives in Martin and Seminole counties (Democrats
did not have similar chance).
6. Spoiled ballots were primarily due to systematic
problems in equipment and the election process, not due to characteristics of
the voter such as education level or literacy.
Minorities were more likely to have to vote on machines that were less
reliable and had a larger percentage of spoiled ballots than other voters. Minorities were systematically discriminated
against by the
C. Analyses after the election determined that
if Florida had had reliable equipment and a fair election, where large numbers
of legal minority voters were not excluded from voting Gore would have won by
at least 40,000 to 50,000 votes.
(see
documentation)
(the Supreme Court decision in Bush vs Gore was not based on constitutional principals or
issues)
Documentation that Gore
won the 2000 election
http://www.legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html
*******************************************************
From
Q: In December, The Herald published a statistical analysis of
overvotes and undervotes
that suggested that in a flawless election Al Gore would have won by 23,000
votes. Did I hear the margin is now
larger?
A: While it is clear that 97 percent of the state's overvote ballots could not be legally counted, there are
clues that suggest that at least some of them were mistakes by people who
intended to cast votes for either Bush or Gore. While speculation of how those
people really meant to vote is just that, speculation, 46,000 more people
marked Gore on their overvoted ballots than marked
Bush.
http://www.miami.com/herald/special/news/flacount/docs/053048.htm
(now achived)
Published
`OVERVOTES' LEANED TO GORE
But to win, he needed help of dimpled ballots or consideration of the thousands
of legal democratic voters purged from the roles and not allowed to vote by the
State Elections Office.
BY MARTIN MERZER mmerzer@herald.com
Democrat Al Gore might be president today if
Republican George W. Bush still would have prevailed -- even
with the overvotes tabulated -- if undervotes had been counted under more restrictive
standards, the review indicates.
The review, conducted by The Herald, its parent company,
Knight Ridder, USA Today and several other
newspapers, also shows that Gore's name was marked on overvotes
far more often than Bush's name -- fodder for Democrats who insist that most
Floridians intended to vote for Gore.
Overvotes are ballots rejected by counting
machines because they show more than one vote for president. Undervotes are ballots without presidential votes detected
by counting machines.
The findings produce an ambiguous conclusion to an
unprecedented effort to examine more than 176,000 untabulated
ballots in
VIRTUAL TIE
The bottom line: After study and analysis of 111,261 overvotes and 64,826 undervotes, the
agonizingly tight 2000 presidential election still ends in a virtual tie. (unless legal overvotes which were
mostly for Gore were counted-see below).
And the outcome still depends on the standard used to gauge undervotes.
Gore wins narrowly under two undervote
standards, by margins of 332 and 242 votes; Bush wins narrowly under two other undervote standards, by 407 and 152 votes. All are closer
than Bush's official 537-vote margin.
And so, the new analysis of the election intrigued or irritated
political partisans Thursday, depending on their point of view.
``These numbers certainly back up our feeling that more
people turned out to vote for Gore than for Bush,'' said Doug Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman. ``It's just a
shame the system didn't count those votes properly. It's hard not to cringe
when you think about the possibilities.''
Speaking for the Republicans, former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot said he never feared ballot reviews by the media.
``So what has changed?'' Racicot
said. ``I always believed we would come to the same conclusion at the end as at
the beginning. The election was not flawless, but it never is. The only count
that really counts is the one conducted under the rule of law.''
The overvote study is the third
examination of how the acrimonious 2000 presidential election might have ended
if manual recounts had gone forward without court challenges and intervention.
In February, The Herald reported that Bush still would have
won the presidency if undervotes in
The Miami-Dade canvassing board halted that recount after
concluding that it could not be completed by a state deadline. The Herald's
review found that Gore would have picked up, at most, 49 net votes in
Miami-Dade, using the most liberal undervote
standard.
Last month, The Herald reported that Bush's victory almost
certainly would have endured even if a statewide recount of undervotes
ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had not been terminated by the U.S.
Supreme Court. By the most liberal standard, Bush's lead would have widened to
1,665 votes had that recount been completed.
Now, the study of Overvote ballots
indicates that Gore might have won the election -- if his campaign had
requested and received a hand recount of every uncounted ballot in the state.
The Herald found that an astonishing 108,115 overvotes -- 97 percent of the total -- are lost forever.
When a voter selects two or more candidates, the true preference cannot be
deduced or assumed, so those votes are unsalvageable.
But the rest -- 3,146 -- bore markings that made it clear
who the voter preferred, The Herald found. Generally, this occurred when voters
chose a candidate and then cast a write-in vote for that same candidate.
``It's amazing to me how some people misinterpreted how to
vote, but it's clear what they intended to do,'' said
Ronald Legendre, chairman of
Most of those recoverable overvotes
-- 1,871 -- were for Gore. Bush received 1,189 such votes. Other candidates
received 86.
That net gain for Gore of 682, when coupled with the undervotes, would have been enough to carry the Democrat to
the White House under two standards for gauging undervotes.
Gore's margin would have been 332 votes if all dimpled ballots were counted. It
would have been 242 votes if dimpled ballots were counted only when dimples
also appeared in other races.
But if the undervotes were
declared valid only when chads were detached by at
least two corners, Bush would have come out on top by 407 votes. And if only
cleanly punched ballots were counted, Bush would win by 152 votes.
Even so, there is ample room for argument that a significant
plurality of Floridians intended to vote for Gore -- but more of them ruined
their ballots by overvoting or undervoting.
One measure of that: Three of every four overvotes
-- a total of 84,204 -- contained a mark for Gore; only one of three overvotes -- a total of 37,738 -- contained a mark for
Bush. (Some overvotes show marks for both).
``Gore would likely have won if all overpunched
ballots had been properly marked, based on measures of voter intent,'' said
Anthony Salvanto, a political scientist at the
University of California-Irvine who analyzed the overvote
results.
This also seems clear:
At an early, crucial stage of the electoral impasse, Gore
made a momentous strategic mistake by not asking for an official statewide
review of every rejected ballot -- undervotes and overvotes. Instead, he requested a recount only in four
counties.
His decision might have been a historic blunder. A statewide
recount of undervotes and overvotes
might have given Gore the vote lead and the political
high ground -- before the legal brawl ever reached the Florida Supreme Court or
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hattaway, the former Gore aide, said the
Democrats did not request a recount of that magnitude because it seemed too
sweeping, too desperate and too unwieldly.
`NO PRECEDENT'
``There was no precedent for it -- until now,'' he said.
``It was discussed but the consensus was that we couldn't get it. There was a
feeling the courts wouldn't give it to us.''
Interestingly, if
Signed Wednesday by Gov. Jeb Bush,
the law requires a recount of every undervote and overvote in the state when the victory margin is less than
a quarter of one percent of the total votes cast.
The 2000 presidential election ended in
DIFFERENT REVIEW
The Herald's review of the state's overvotes
differed in several ways from the newspaper's previous undervote
review. The entire project cost The Herald, Knight-Ridder and its partners
about $825,000.
The undervote review was
undertaken by a public accounting firm, BDO Seidman,
LLP, under the sponsorship of The Herald, Knight Ridder
and USA Today. An accountant reviewed each ballot and noted its
characteristics.
All tabulations of undervotes were
provided by BDO Seidman, based on those observations.
Separately, a reporter also reviewed each ballot, but the results of that
review were used only as a statistical check for variation.
Each overvote, however, was
reviewed by one person only -- a reporter from The Herald, USA Today or six
other newspapers: The Tallahassee Democrat, The Bradenton Herald, Florida
Today, The Tampa Tribune, the Fort Myers News-Press and The Pensacola News
Journal.
In 59 counties, reporters physically examined every overvote ballot and recorded what they found. In eight
heavily populated counties, the newspapers used official computer tapes to
identify combinations of candidates marked on overvoted
ballots. In those counties, reporters then examined all ballots that contained
handwritten marks that would not have appeared on computer records.
The results of the overvote review
were assembled into a database, and the various combinations were examined.
The Herald then attempted to recreate the conditions of the
election prior to any court action and before hand recounts in Volusia, Broward
and
Machine counts certified by each county by Nov. 14 plus
subsequently counted overseas absentee ballots and some recently identified undervotes from
Gore's 682-vote net gain from overvotes
would have sharply reduced that lead -- to 455. And that lead would have been
overtaken had undervote ballots with dimples been
included.
But no such statewide recount of undervotes
and overvotes was mandated by law last November, so
county election supervisors were not required to search for recoverable votes
or even accept any they found.
In
The canvassing board voted 2-1, however, not to rehabilitate
those ballots because the board planned no systematic search of all rejected
ballots.
``I was whooping and hollering the whole night,'' recalled
Donna Miller, the canvassing board chairwoman, who lost that battle. ``I was so
frustrated. There was no question in my mind who they wanted. I could hardly
sleep that night, I was so upset.''
OTHER FINDINGS
Among The Herald's other findings:
Statewide, the combination of votes for Gore and Pat
Buchanan, the Reform Party candidate, represented the most common overvote, accounting for 10,234 botched ballots or nine
percent of the total. Other common combinations: Gore and Libertarian Harry
Browne, Bush and Gore, Bush and Buchanan.
A mark for Buchanan appeared on 36,757 overvotes,
nearly as frequently as the marks for Bush. That probably was caused by
Buchanan's proximity on ballots to both Bush and Gore, especially on Palm Beach
County's now-notorious ``butterfly'' ballot.
Nearly 1,000 people voted for every candidate,
disenfranchising themselves.
More than 3,600 voted for every candidate except Bush. More
than 700 voted for every candidate except Gore.
``We could call these `anybody but him' voters,'' Salvanto said. ``One theory is that these are people who
simply do not understand the voting process and are marking everyone of whom
they approve. Just as long as the guy they don't like doesn't get in.''
Most of the overvotes in
In
BUTTERFLY BALLOT
A recent statistical study by six political scientists from
Eighty-four percent of overvoters
in Duval punched presidential candidates on both pages.
Regardless of ballot design, regardless of voting system,
every county in the state reported overvotes.
VOTING DIRECTIONS
``I have directions printed on the ballot, directions with
pictures, sample ballots with graphics sent to every household in the county,
and the same thing goes in the [news]paper,'' said Pat Hollarn,
supervisor of elections in Okaloosa County, which used the more modern and
reliable optical-scan system but had 677 overvotes
anyway.
``When we give them that much instruction, if they sent an
absentee ballot that's marked double, then I can't tell what somebody meant by
that. Nobody can. You can't guess what somebody meant.''
Still, The Herald's study confirms that many overvotes would have been accepted as valid -- if election
officials had looked at them in time.
And in an election as close as the 2000 presidential race
between George W. Bush and Al Gore, those ballots might have made a difference.
Herald staff writers Lila Arzua,
Tyler Bridges, Tim Henderson and Jay Weaver contributed to this report.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Yes indeed, the counting was halted (Saturday morning when the counting was set to be completed on Sunday, while the nefarious Dec 12 "deadline" loomed on the following Tuesday).Ostensibly, the idea was to get a count free of handcounts using differing standards. Did the USSC acheive this? No. The count that Katherine Harris "certified"...which turned out to be the count relied upon to award Bush the electors...contained MANY handcounted ballots. In other words, the "legal" count was one which was UNconstitutionally arrived at. At least six "Republican" counties and one "Democrat" county met the "deadline" to have their handcounted (by the Unconstitutional "differing standards") ballots included in the certification. The Republican counties added over 600 votes to Bush's total, by finding "handcounted" ballots for him, which if disallowed (as being unconstitutional) would have caused Bush to be BEHIND in the totals at certification time.Equal protection? For WHOM? Can you name ANYBODY, from among the voters in America, who received any MEASURE of "equal protection" from the ruling handed down in Bush v Gore?If so, I'd love to hear WHO, and why you think they GOT it.And on the question of "conservative vs. liberal" instead of "partisan" considerations being made by the Justices of the USSC, this idea is destroyed by the fact that the Rhenquist 5 had to violate their so-called "deeply held conservative principles" concerning the judiciary in many, many ways to arrive at their Bush v Gore ruling. They abandoned "state's rights", they set aside their stated (in writings) requirement for there to be both a specific harmed party AND a proven INTENT to harm that party before they would consider invoking "equal protection" (neither requirement was met in Bush v Gore), they abandoned Scalia's admonition that the Supreme Court has NO BUSINESS making "unique" rulings (Bush v Gore was "unique" in that the Rhenquist 5 said the ruling cannot be applied to any other future cases...is set NO PRECEDENCE WHATSOEVER). Further, Conservatives supposedly ABHOR "Judicial Activism", of which Bush v Gore was a textbook example.In short, if the Rhenquist 5 had adhered to CONSERVATIVE principles instead of PARTISAN considerations, they would never have taken the case in the first place. They abandoned their Conservative principles wholesale in order to install BUSH in office. From: jeffharrison3Date: Sun Jan 27 12:10 PM EST 2002******************
kuvasz1
the oddest thing about
for a minor third party
candidate of thousands of votes but only
a few hundred throughout the
rest of the state. obviously, there
was a machine count error, but
you never heard too much about it,
because if the votes had been
recounted, the ratio of gore to
bush in that county (a democractic one)was such that gore would
have obtained hundreds more
votes than Bush. But you can surely
bet Pig Boy on the radio would
have been knashing his tusks and a
caravan of republican operatives
would have invaded the county
like they did in miami-dade and
History will reveal that bush was an illegitimate pResident. i
only hope he doesn't f*ck up the
country too much more before he
is thrown out of office on his
sorry a$$ like his Poppy.
jeffharrison3
What is obvious is that even AFTER the GOP and their
operatives
nd their "machine"
in Jeb's corrupt-to-the-gills state performed
every underhanded and
anti-American, anti-voter, anti-democratic
trick they could think of, Al
Gore STILL got more valid, legal
votes than Bush.
There is now absolutely no doubt whatsoever that
more voters in
is sniggling technicalities,
legal maneuvers, and distractions
like declaring Dem voters are
"stupid". Problem is, none of that
covers up the fact that, if the
votes had actually been counted,
GORE WON.
This was a triumph of trickery, fraud, bully tactics, vote
tampering masquerading as
"honest mistakes", and partisanship IN
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, over
the WILL of the PEOPLE. The GOP, the
Supreme Court, Bush, Cheney, Baker, and the whole
Republican crew
have seething contempt for the
American People.
I think the least I can do is second that emotion in
return.
Berniew1 Quick statsAdded on
As the exit polls indicated, over 100,000 people
more wanted to
vote for Gore than Bush, but
their votes weren't counted. The
votes are still there for anyone
who wants to check.
As the Newspapers analysis indicates, just by
looking at the 3%
of the "overvotes"(where someone voted for Gore twice rather
than
once due to the ballot layout
and directions) if the clearly
legal votes had been looked at
Gore won by over 30,000. But
looking at the 97% not considered
here, its also obvious that
over 90% of these tried to vote
for Gore, but due to ballot
design problems such as the confusing
2 page ballots with Gore's
and Buchan's buttons switched
in order, many accidently voted for
Buchanan and other such
situations.
The corruption and dirty tricks
in
pervasive. What I've talked about doesn't include the
fact that
thousands of legal black voters were
taken off the voting roles
prior to the election(blacks
voted 90% for Gore) and thousands of
Democrats who signed up to vote in the Motor Voter
program were
not put on the roles, while
Republicans who signed up at the same
time were, and lots of voters in
minority districts could not
vote due to problems in their
polling places and faulty equipment
that didn't register their
vote.
jeffharrison3Added
on
erification of the election result by
the Congress, but none is
set in stone. Before Election
2000, the guiding principle was the
determination, as best the law could
discern, of how all the
legal, valid voters voted. The
FSC honored that tradition, by
calling for recounts. The USSC
relied instead on an arbitrary
deadline to NEGATE the valid, legal
votes of "the People".
Now, Prag and Max, an
"election knowledge"
Over 30 states have a "clear intent of the
voter" standard for
manually recounting votes. Is this
standard now UnConstitutional,
and illegal? Yes, or No?
1.
within 7 days of election day, or
Nov. 14, IF THERE IS NO
PROTEST. Legal protests were handled
by a SEPARATE law, which
spelled out WHEN, under WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES, and HOW candidates
could demand manual recounts. IF
the vote was so close it was
within one half of one percent
difference, a machine recount was
mandatory. If the machine recount did
not resolve the winner
OUTSIDE THAT MARGIN, then manual recounts could be
requested
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS of the election.
Obviously, the State Legislature intended for the
manual recounts
to be conducted, when the
election was that close. The problem
is, it is a physical
impossibility to manually recount within the
deadline for certifying elections
that are NOT CLOSE.
So, the laws were in conflict. The secretary of
state was given "
discretion" over the deadline,
but Katherine Harris had no
inclination to follow the second law,
since the first one would
give the election to Bush.
This conflict was taken to state court, as all
conflicts in state
law SHOULD be and usually ARE,
for the legal resolution.
The Florida Supreme Court overruled Harris (who, out
of thin air,
decided only a hurricane could
negate the first certification
deadline), and the FSC said her
discretion should fall to
determining the ACTUAL winner, and the
ACTUAL will of the voters,
rather than adhering to an
arbitrary deadline meant for
unchallenged elections clearly won by
one party or the other.
The problem in meeting the FIRST deadline is that it
was intended
for votes which were NOT CLOSE.
Elections so close they must be
manually recounted, according to
state law, could not possibly be
expected to adhere to the first
deadline.
2. The USSC negated state laws to make their
decision to end the
vote counting. The law IN PLACE
at the time of the election
called for manual recounts in
close races. The law IN PLACE at
the time of the election called
for the canvassing boards to
determine "the clear intent of
the voter" by examining the
ballots. The USSC overruled these
laws. Thus, the USSC changed
the laws in place at the time
of the election. You say these laws
cannot be changed. The USSC changed
them, or rather, set them
aside. On Nov 7, these laws
existed in force. On Dec 12, they
were gone, as if they never
existed. Can't change the laws AFTER
the election any more than
THAT.
Yes, the USSC made some determiniations,
citing "equal protection
". The recounts must be done, according to the
USSC, statewide,
by a uniform and more detailed
standard than "clear intent", and
must include ALL votes,
including OVERVOTES. Following the USSC's
rules, the Consortium determined
Al Gore got more votes, and
WOULD HAVE won the election.
And yes, the USSC said "time is up" to
enact these procedures and
standards. They did so by saying that
any votes counted after Dec
12 THEY would consider "unconstitutional".
Why? Because if done
after Dec 12, then the slate of
electors resulting from a later
count MIGHT result in a
conflicting slate of electors sent by the
resolve the conflict, and should
have been allowed to occur. Dec
12 was a "safe harbor" deadline, which was
never meant to negate
the accurate counting of valid
and legal votes. The USSC decided
NOT to follow the constitutional procedure, and
instead decide
the election outcome
themselves.
As a result, NOBODY was accorded "equal
protection". Nobody at
all. But the USSC didn't care.
Equal Protection was only the "
justification" they needed to hear
the case. The USSC had no
intention of their intervention
resulting in equal protection of
ANYBODY. The sole resulting
beneficiary of this equal protection
invocation was one person: GW Bush.
3. There IS no "date certain" for election
results. There are
deadline "triggers" for
various conditions...certification,
meeting of electors, and
v(continued in next response...)
kuvasz1Added on
I don't even know where to start, is it....
1. the use by republican
operatives in county after county fixing
only republican registration
forms in county clerks offices
against the law,
2. the use of a republican
organization paid by katherine harris'
office to purge voter rolls of
felons and have thousands of
non-felons purged from the voting
registrations rolls.
3. the incredibly repugnant
sight of paid congressional aids and
republican party operatives rioting
before the vote count offices
in palm springs that shut down
the recount in that county.
4. the GOP attcking Gore for questioning absantee
military
ballots as un-patriotic in some
counties while doing just that in
other places,
5. the fact that bush
signed into law in texas the use of hand
counted votes as the final arbiter
of elections tallies, and then
arguing againt
it as a less reliable method, even when the man
who invented the machinery that
counted the votes stated
uncatagorically that the hand count method
was more reliable.
but I shall let the words of
Justice Stevens be my final words on
this issue because no one said
it better than Justice Stevens in
his dissent on the verdict in
Bush vs Gore. It should be
inscribed on all 5 of the Justices
tombstones that voted for
Bush.
<quote>
"The Constitution assigns to the States the
primary
responsibility for determining the manner
of selecting the
Presidential electors. See Art. II, Section. 1, clause. 2. When
questions arise about the meaning of
state laws, including
election laws, it is our settled
practice to accept the opinions
of the highest courts of the
States as providing the final
answers. On rare occasions,
however, either federal statutes or
the Federal Constitution may
require federal judicial
intervention in state elections. This is
not such an occasion."
<snip>
"One thing, however, is certain. Although we
may never know with
complete certainty the identity of
the winner of this year's
Presidential election, the identity of the loser is
perfectly
clear. It is the Nation's
confidence in the judge as an impartial
guardian of the rule of
law.?---Justice Stevens
Read the whole text.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/legaldocs/stevenstext121300.htm
And as to the self congratulatoy Judge Posner, if his latest book
on intellectuals and his
methods area an indication of his
acumen, i
would never consider him for advice.
http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html
Q: I'm not a
lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme
Court decision in Bush v.
Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer.
I read it. It says Bush wins,
even if
Gore got the most votes.
Q: But wait a
second. The US Supreme Court has to give
a
reason, right?
A: Right.
Q: So Bush
wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh
no. Six of the nine justices believed
that hand-counts
were legal and should
count. Indeed, all nine found "
basic command for the count of
legally cast votes is to consider
'the intent of the
voter.'" "This is
unobjectionable as an
abstract proposition." In fact, "uniform rules to determine
intent" are not only
"practicable" but "necessary."
Q: So that's
a complicated way of saying "divining the intent of
the voter" is perfectly
legal?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, if
hand counts are fine, why were they stopped?
Have
the re-counts already tabulated
all the legal ballots?
A. No. The five conservative justices clearly held
(and all
nine justices agreed) "that
punch card balloting machines can
produce an unfortunate number of
ballots which are not punched in
a clean, complete way by the
voter." So there are legal votes
that should be counted but will
never be.
Q: Does this
have something to do with states' rights?
Don't
conservatives love that?
A: Yes. These five justices have held that the
federal
government has no business telling a
sovereign state university
it can't steal trade secrets
just because such stealing is
prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any
business telling a state that it
should bar guns in schools. Nor
can the federal government use
the equal protection clause to
force states to take measures to
stop violence against women.
Q: Is there
an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the
"Gore exception." States have
no rights to control
their own state elections when it
can result in Gore being
elected President. This decision is limited to only this
situation.
Q:
C'mon. The Supremes didn't really
say that. You're
exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited
to the present
circumstances, as the problem of equal
protection in election
processes generally presents many
complexities."
Q: What
complexities?
A: They
didn't say.
Q: I'll bet
I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say
this.
The votes can't be counted because the Florida
Supreme Court "
changed the rules of the election after
it was held." Right?
A. Wrong. The
US Supreme Court made clear that the
Supreme Court did not change the rules of the
election. But the
US Supreme Court found this failure of the Florida
Court to
change the rules after the
election was wrong.
Q: Huh?
A: The
Legislature declared that the only legal standard for
counting vote is "clear intent
of the voter." The
was condemned for not adopting
a clearer standard after the
election.
Q: I thought
the Florida Court was not allowed to change the
Legislature's law after the
election.
A: Right.
Q: So what's
the problem?
A: They
should have. The US Supreme Court said
the
Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate
statewide standards
for determining what is a legal
vote"
Q: I thought
only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.
Q: So if the
Florida Court had adopted new standards, I thought
it would have been overturned.
A:
Right. You're catching on.
Q: Wait. If the Florid(continued
in next response...)a Court had adopted new standards, it would have been
overturned
for changing the rules. And since it didn't do it, it's
being
overturned for not changing the
rules? That makes no sense.
That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme
Court did,
legal votes could never be
counted if they would end up with a
possible Gore victory.
A:
Right. Next
question.
Q: Wait,
wait. I thought the problem was
"equal protection,"
that some counties counted votes differently from
others. Isn't
that a problem?
A: It sure
is. Across the nation, we vote in a
hodgepodge of
systems. Some, like the
optical-scanners in largely
Republican-leaning counties record 99.7 percent of
the votes.
Some, like the punch card systems
in largely Democratic-leaning
counties, record only 97 percent of
the votes. So approximately
3 percent of Democratic-leaning votes are thrown in
the trash
can.
Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A: No it's
not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried
about the 3%
of Democratic-leaning ballots
(about 170,000) thrown in the
trashcan in
Q: Was it the
butterfly ballots that violated
fooled more than 10,000 Democrats
into voting for Buchanan or
both Gore and Buchanan?
A: Nope. The courts have no problem believing that
Buchanan got
his highest, best support in a
precinct consisting of a Jewish
old age home with Holocaust survivors,
who apparently have
changed their mind about Buchanan's
view that Hitler was not all
that bad.
Q.Yikes.
So what was the serious equal
protection problem?
A: The
problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 170,000
or 3 percent of
Democratic-leaning voters (largely
African-Americans) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat
less than 0.01 percent of the
ballots (less than 600 votes) may
have been determined under
ever-so-slightly different standards
by judges and county officials
recording votes under strict
public scrutiny, as Americans have
done for more than 200 years.
The single judge overseeing the entire process might
miss a vote
or two.
Q: A single
judge? I thought the standards were
different. I
thought that was the whole point of
the Supreme Court opinion.
A: Judge
Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the
Florida Supreme Court, had already ordered each of
the counties
to fax him their standards so
he could be sure they were uniform.
Republican
activists repeatedly sent junk faxes to Lewis in
order to prevent counties from
submitting the standards to Lewis
in a way that could justify
the vote counting. That succeeded in
stalling the process until Justice Scalia could stop the count.
Q: Hmmm. Well, even if those less than 600
difficult-to-tell
votes are thrown out, you can still count the other 170,000
votes (or just the 60,000 of them
that were never counted) where
everyone, even Republicans, agrees
the voter's intent is clear,
right?
A: Nope.
Q: Why not?
A: No time.
Q: I thought
the Supreme Court said the Constitution was more
important than speed.
A: It
did. It said, "The press of time
does not diminish the
constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general
excuse for ignoring equal
protection guarantees."
Q: Well that
makes sense. So there's time to count
the votes
when the intent is clear and
everyone is treated equally then.
Right?
A: No. The Supreme Court won't allow it.
Q: But they just
said that the constitution is more important
than speed!
A: You
forget. There is the "Gore
exception."
Q: Hold
on. No time to count legal votes where
everyone, even
Republicans, agrees the intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because
they issued the opinion at
Q: Is
December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No.
1960,
Q: So why is
December 12 important?
A: December
12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge
the results.
Q: What does
the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme
Court?
A:
Nothing. In fact, as of
still hadn't turned in their results.
Q: But I
thought ---
A: The
Florida Supreme Court had said earlier it would like to
complete its work by December 12 to
make things easier for
Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to
"help"
the Florida Supreme Court out by reversing it and forcing
the Fl
orida court to abide by a
deadline that everyone agrees is not
binding.
Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just
barely have
the votes counted by December
12.
A: They would
have made it, but the five conservative justices
stopped the recount last Saturday.
Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the votes may not be legally
counted.
Q: So why not
separate the votes into piles -- hanging chads for
Gore, indentations for Bush, votes that everyone
agrees were
intended for Gore or Bush -- so that
we know exactly how
voted before determining who
won? Then, if some ballots (say,
indentations) have to be thrown out, the
American people will
know right away who won
A. Great
idea! An intelligent, rational solution
to a difficult
problem! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held
in
stopping the count on December 9
that such counts would be likely
to produce election results
showing Gore won and that Gore's
winning the count would cause
"public acceptance" that would "cast[] a
cloud" over Bush's
"legitimacy" and thereby harm "democratic
stability."
Q: In other
words, if
they won't accept the US Supreme
Court making Bush President?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that a
legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just
say in all of American history and all of American
law, this is the first time a
court has ever refused to count
votes in order to protect one
candidate's "legitimacy" over
another's.
Q: Aren't
these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when
liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
Q: Well, if
the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not
count the votes afterward?
A: The US Supreme
Court, after conceding the December 12
deadline is not binding, set
December 12 as a binding deadline at
Q: Didn't the
US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court
for arbitrarily setting a
deadline?
A: Yes.
Q: But, but
--
A: Not to
worry. The US Supreme Court does not
have to follow
laws it sets for other courts.
Q: So who
caused
A: The Bush
lawyers who, before Gore filed a single lawsuit,
went to court to stop the recount.
The rent-a-mob in
got free
constant request for delay by Bush
lawyers in
And, primarily, the US Supreme Court, which refused
to consider
Bush's equal protection claim on
the recount entirely on
December 9, and then, on December 12 at
rejected three weeks earlier, but
complained there was no time
left to count the votes in the two
hours left before
that evening.
Q: So who is
punished for this behavior?
A: Gore. And the 50 million plus Americans that voted
for him,
some 540,000 more than voted for
Bush.
Q: You're
telling me
existing for a hundred years are now
suddenly unconstitutional?
A: Yes. According to the Supreme Court, the
Legislature drafted
the law in such a messy way
that the
fairly counted. Since Secretary of State Katherine Harris
never
got around to setting more
definitive standards for a counting
votes, Gore loses the election.
Q: Does this
mean the election laws of any of the other 49
states are unconstitutional as
well?
A: Yes, if
one logically applies the Supreme Court opinion. The
voters of all 50 states use
different systems and standards to
vote and count votes, and 33
states have the same "clear intent
of the voter" standard
that the US Supreme Court found illegal in
Q: Then why
aren't the results of these 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Because . . . um . . . the Supreme Court
doesn't say . .
.
Q: But if
declared by the US Supreme Court to
be unconstitutional, we don't
know who really won the election
there, right?
A: Right.
Q: But then
what makes Bush President?
A: Good
question. A careful statistical analysis
by the
Herald extrapolates from the 170,000 uncounted votes
in
to show Gore clearly won the state
and may have done so by as
much as 23,000 votes (excluding
the butterfly ballot errors).
See www.herald.com/thispage.htm?content/archive/news/elect
2000/decision/104268.htm
Q: So, answer
my question: what makes Bush President?
A: Since
there was no time left for a re-count based on the
non-binding "deadline," the
Supreme Court decided to choose
itself who will be President and
has picked Bush to win by a vote
of 5 to 4, based on the flawed
count it just determined to be
unconstitutional.
Q: That's
completely bizarre! That sounds like
rank political
favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest
in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers at law firms working for
Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for
people who
want to work in the Bush
administration.
Q: Why didn't
they remove themselves from the case?
A: If either
had recused himself, the vote would have been 4-4,
the Florida Supreme Court
decision allowing recounts would have
been affirmed, and Scalia said he feared that would mean Gore
winning the election. Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor had both
said before the election that
they wanted to retire but would
only do so if a Republican were
elected, and when O'Connor heard
from early (and, we now know,
accurate) exit polls that Gore had
won
Q: I can't
believe the justices acted in such a blatantly
political way.
A: Read the
opinions for yourself
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf(December
9 stay
stopping the recount)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf(December 12 opinion)
Q: So what
are the consequences of this?
A: The guy
who got the most votes in the
under our Constitution (Al Gore)
will lose to
choice (George W. Bush), since
Bush has won the all-important 5-4
Supreme Court vote, which trumps
in a democracy, the guy with
the most votes wins. At least in
the Electoral College, shouldn't
the guy with the most votes in
democracy, or even a republic. In
the most US Supreme Court votes
wins. That's why we don't need
to count the People's votes in
Q: So what
will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes
President?A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of
Thomas
and Scalia
to ensure that the will of the people is less and less
respected. Soon lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or
even 7-2
on the court.Q: Is there any way to stop this?A: YES.
No
federal judge can be confirmed
without a vote in the Senate. It
takes 60 votes to break a
filibuster. If only 41 of the 50
Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supreme
Court and
say that they will not approve
a single judge appointed by him
until a President can be
democratically elected in 2004, the
judicial reign of terror will end?.and one day we can hope to
return to the rule of law and the
will of the People.
Q: Why can't
we impeach the justices?
A: That takes
a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and
is far more
controversial. Don't worry. A 4-year judicial
filibuster will definitely get the
Court's attention. Indeed, it
is probably the only way to
get the Court's attention.Q: What
can I do to help?A: Email this article to everyone you know, and
write or call your Senator,
reminding him or her that Gore beat
Bush by more than 540,000 (almost five times
Kennedy's margin
over Nixon) and that you believe
that elections should be
determined by counting the People's
votes, not the Supreme
Court's.
Therefore, to stop our unelected federal judiciary from
ever again overturning the will
of the people, you ask your
Senators to confirm NO NEW FEDERAL J
NON-DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT until 2004 when
a president
can be finally chosen by the
American people, instead of Antonin
Scalia.
Q: Doesn't
anyone on the US Supreme Court follow the rule of
law?
A: Yes. Read the four dissents. Excerpts below:
Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by
Ford):"
Although we may never know with complete certainty
the identity o
f the winner of this year's
Presidential election, the identity
of the loser is perfectly
clear. It is the Nation's confidence
in the judge as an impartial
guardian of the rule of law."
Justice David Souter
(Republican appointed by Bush):"Before this
Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the
ballots] the
courts of
count all the disputed ballots now.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
(Democrat appointed by
Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt"
regime." [In other words, democracy in
The court should not let its "untested
prophecy" that counting
votes is "impractical"
"decide the presidency of the United
States."Justice Steven Breyer
(Democrat appointed by
There is no justification for the majority's remedy . . . " We
"risk a self-inflicted
wound -- a wound that may harm not just
the court, but the
nation."
Mark H. LevineAttorney at
MarkLevineEsq@aol.com
I would
respectfully suggest that we look at exactly WHAT those seven of nine were
actually SAYING. Massagatto suggests the nine said
the FSC erred. That is not the case. The seven said simply that partial
recounts, using varying standards, presented an equal protection problem. The
seven agreed the FSC had no choice as to the standard, since it was set by the
Florida Legislature, but the seven DID agree that the FSC could remedy the
situation by having the recount overseen centrally by a judge (terry lewis already had that job), doing the count statewide, and
including ALL disputed votes, including undervotes
AND overvotes. So, saying the vote of 7-2 was EITHER
an acceptance of halting vote counting altogether, OR represented a rebuke of
the Florida Supreme Court...is simply FALSE. Furthermore, the seven did not
seem upset enough about the "equal protection" hazard in Florida OR
nationwide to actually set a PRECEDENCE in this case.
As has been mentioned above, they agreed election systems are unfair, but that
there's nothing they could do about it. So, they limited their
"findings" ONLY to denying Gore a victory. Nothing
else.
Yes indeed, the counting was halted
(Saturday morning when the
counting was set to be completed on
Sunday, while the nefarious
Dec 12 "deadline" loomed on the following
Tuesday).
Ostensibly, the idea was to get a count free of handcounts using
differing standards.
Did the USSC acheive this?
No.
The count that Katherine Harris
"certified"...which turned out to
be the count relied upon to
award Bush the electors...contained
MANY handcounted
ballots.
In other words, the "legal" count was
one which was UNconstitutionally arrived at. At least six
"
Republican" counties and one
"Democrat" county met the "deadline"
to have their handcounted (by the Unconstitutional
"differing
standards") ballots included in
the certification.
The Republican counties added over 600 votes to
Bush's total, by
finding "handcounted"
ballots for him, which if disallowed (as
being unconstitutional) would have
caused Bush to be BEHIND in
the totals at certification
time.
Equal protection? For WHOM?
Can you name ANYBODY, from among the
voters in
from the ruling handed down in Bush v Gore?
If so, I'd love to hear WHO, and why you think they
GOT it.
And on the question of "conservative vs.
liberal" instead of "
partisan" considerations being
made by the Justices of the USSC,
this idea is destroyed by the
fact that the Rhenquist 5 had to
violate their so-called
"deeply held conservative principles"
concerning the judiciary in many, many ways to arrive at
their B
ush v Gore ruling. They
abandoned "state's rights", they set
aside their stated (in writings)
requirement for there to be both
a specific harmed party AND a
proven INTENT to harm that party
before they would consider
invoking "equal protection" (neither
requirement was met in Bush v Gore),
they abandoned Scalia's
admonition that the Supreme Court has
NO BUSINESS making "unique"
rulings (Bush v Gore was "unique" in that the Rhenquist 5 said
the ruling cannot be applied to
any other future cases...is set
NO PRECEDENCE WHATSOEVER). Further, Conservatives
supposedly
ABHOR "Judicial Activism", of which Bush v
Gore was a textbook
example.
In short, if the Rhenquist
5 had adhered to CONSERVATIVE
principles instead of PARTISAN
considerations, they would never
have taken the case in the first
place. They abandoned their
Conservative principles wholesale in order to
install BUSH in
office.
You are quite right; what's done is
done.
Bush is "legally" our President.
In court, one wins, the other loses.
Having said THAT, there are many ongoing
repercussions to Bush v
Gore. In my opinion, these can be
very good indeed.
First, it was demonstrated how horribly inadequate,
biased, and
antiquated our election machinery is
in
already passed new laws to
"clean up" the mess. Congress is
considering appropriating money to
update election equipment
nationwide. Punchcards
have been eliminated in
thought the USSC set no
"precedence" with Bush v Gore, they DID
indicate that "equal
protection" should apply to election
apparati. This is a GOOD
development.
Second, the Rhenquist 5,
in order to install Bush, had to abandon
so many of their previously
claimed "deeply held principles". No
more will they be able to claim
such things as "state's rights"
and scold such things as "judicial activism". They
have put the
LIE to these claims, and as a result the Rightwing
will nevermore
to be credible on these
issues.
Third, with the help of James Baker in
view of the Judiciary as indeed
a POLITICAL and PARTISAN job.
Previous to Bush v Gore, the confirmation hearings
for
replacement justices were kept on
"qualifications" and shied away
from any "litmus test"
on party affiliation. The USSC in Bush v
Gore has thoroughly blurred that distinction. James
Baker told
us, in no uncertain terms,
that a JUDGE cannot be trusted to rule
impartially, if it's a political
question. He smeared the
SC as "hopelessly partisan", and by so
doing, removed the patina
of "blind justice"
from the judiciary from top to bottom.
Therefore, when and IF Bush ever gets to send a
nominee to the
Supreme Court, the gloves are off. Partisan
political issues are
FAIR GAME, because Rhenquist
et al have demonstrated that the
court will intervene in choosing
our political leaders, if at all
possible. It's now a relevant issue.
This, too, is a GOOD thing.
I recalled
the 3% figure as the overall national error rate attributed to punchcard ballots, as opposed to less than half a percent
error rate for optical scans. But, you are of course right. I also recall the
AVERAGE error rate in Florida was closer to 6%, with some areas being much higher.Florida was supposed to go early for Bush, and then
be subsequently ignored. The Republicans were confident they had gamed the system in
**********************************
More
eligible Democratic voters excluded from voter roles by Bush Admininstration in
The South
Florida Sun‑Sentinel reports: "The Florida Department of Corrections
is investigating an error that may have disenfranchised a number of eligible
voters in four counties in the past four years. A handful of probation officers
in Broward, Monroe,
www.sun‑sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/ search/sfl‑pcprobation02aug02.story
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
1.
Media Consortium Statewide Count of "Undervotes"
and "Overvotes" Proves Gore Won Under ANY
Standard
The Media
Consortium hired the
|
|
Gore
Gain |
Gore
Deficit or
Lead |
|
Certified by Katherine Harris |
|
-537 |
|
Valid votes found after certification |
+59 |
-478 |
|
Correctly marked paper ballots |
+493 |
+15 |
|
Full punches |
+100 |
+115 |
|
Poorly marked paper ballot |
+309 |
+424 |
|
3-corner chads |
-208 |
+216 |
|
2-corner chads |
-111 |
+105 |
|
1-corner chads |
-45 |
+60 |
|
Dimples with sunlight |
+88 |
+148 |
|
Dimples |
-41 |
+107 |
Unfortunately, the members of the Media Consortium insisted on
distorting the analysis of their own clear data (see "Spin Control" below).
2.
Without counting a single hanging or dimpled chad,
Gore won by 662, according to the Miami Herald. The votes
below were crystal clear votes as determined by the Herald's accounting firm,
BDO Seidman. Under
|
|
Gore Gain |
Gore Deficit or Lead |
|
Certified by Katherine Harris |
|
-537 |
|
Clear "Undervotes" (optical
scan) |
+319 |
-218 |
|
Clear "Undervotes" (punch
card) |
+198 |
-20 |
|
Clear "Overvotes" |
+682 |
+662 |
Unfortunately, the Herald insists on distorting the analysis of
its own clear data (see "Spin Control" below).
3. Other Media Counts Lead
to the Same Conclusion
You can see the same data in greater detail here:
_ The
_ Unknown News
|
Date |
Event |
Gore Gain |
Gore Deficit or Lead |
|
|
Certified by Katherine Harris |
|
-537 |
|
|
Florida Supreme Court ruling |
+383 |
-154 |
|
|
|
+130 |
- 24 |
|
|
Broward ( |
+164 |
+140 |
|
|
Hernando (Hernando Today) |
+4 |
+144 |
|
|
Hillsborough ( |
+120 |
+264 |
|
|
|
+40 |
+304 |
|
|
Miami-Dade #1 (Palm Beach Post) - minus prior recount included
in 12/8 |
-6+11-209 |
+100 |
|
|
Collier ( |
-226 |
-126 |
|
|
|
+682 |
+556 |
|
|
15 County (Orlando Sentinel) -minus prior recounts in |
+366-170 |
+752 |
|
|
Orange ( |
+203 |
+955 |
|
|
Seminole ( |
+13 |
+968 |
|
|
Miami-Dade #2 (Miami Herald)also: how the media twisted this
recount into a "Gore lost" story |
+49 |
+1,017 |
|
|
Osceola ( |
+25 |
+1,042 |
|
|
|
+102 |
+1,144 |
|
|
Martin, St. Lucie
( |
+92 |
+1,236 |
|
|
Total Gore Gain from Recounts |
+1,773 |
|
4. Overvote
Analysis - Gore's True Margin of Victory
If every county in
|
Date |
Event |
Gore Gain |
Gore Deficit or Lead |
|
|
Analysis of overvotes
in 8 counties by the Washington Post |
+28,510 |
+28,510 |
|
|
Analysis of overvotes
in 15 counties by the Orlando Sun-Sentinel |
+944 |
+29,454 |
|
|
Gore-Libertarian overvotes
in 16 counties by Orlando Sun-Sentinel |
+797 |
+30,257 |
|
|
Analysis of overvotes
in |
+6,607 |
|
|
|
Analysis of overvotes
statewide by the |
|
+46,466 |
5. Disputed Votes
There are several categories of votes that have been widely
disputed. Unlike the votes above, these disputed votes could not have been
resolved by county canvassing boards, either on election night or during the
subsequent recounts.
It is impossible to quantify most of these categories, but we can
try to give our best estimates.
Categories favoring Gore
_ Absentee ballots that could
not be read by voting machines, but were illegally "duplicated" by
county election officials: 10,000 (over 60% Bush)
_ Legal voters who were
disenfranchised by Katherine Harris through the criminally inaccurate purge of
"felons": 1,100 (90% Gore)
_ Absentee ballots cast in
Seminole and Martin counties by Republican voters following the criminal
alteration of defective ballot applications by Republican operatives: 5,000
(99% Bush)
_ Votes meant for Gore but
cast for Buchanan because of the "butterfly ballot" in
_ Voters who went to the
polls but were unable to cast a vote because of language problems (and no
translators) or physical disability: (70% Gore)
_ Registrations submitted
from black colleges but not processed: (90% Gore) (thousands)
_ Overseas military ballots
that were not legal, but were counted because of massive pressure from the Bush
campaign: 680 (71% Bush)
_ Police checkpoints near
black precincts:
Categories favoring Bush
_ Premature network
projections for Gore 10 minutes before polls closed in the Panhandle: 10 (60%
Bush?)
6. Racial Discrimination
_ Whose Votes Don't Count?: An Analysis of Spoiled Ballots in the 2000
_ Report of the
_ NAACP et al v. Katherine
Harris et al
_ Votes of Poor Are Discarded
3 Times More than Votes of Rich Across the
7. The Untold Story
A wide range of suspicious activities were reported by eyewitnesses
and the news media. Many of these activities have still not been investigated.
_ Questions the
_ Oral Majority: The Evidence
Room
_ The
_ "Lost" Votes and
a Stolen Election
_ Bush Never Won
_ 13 Myths About
The Results Of The 2000 Election
_ The
_ Scary Facts about the
_ Al Gore's Margin of VICTORY
in
_ How Did This Happen?
_ Election 2000 FAQ
_ The Five Worst Republican
Outrages
_ Democracy Subverted -
November 2000 Election Irregularities
8. Spin Control - Media
Distortion of the Stolen Election
Each new revelation about the Stolen Election has been accompanied
by articles that were deliberately distorted by editors and reporters to deny
the reality that Gore Won
_
_ Media Lies Once Again to
Declare Bush the Winner
_ The Bush Propaganda Machine
Strikes Again in
_ Now its
Unofficial: Gore Did Win
_ Gore Moves Ahead in
9. Republicans Would Never Accept a Gore Victory
_ Bush Set to Fight An Electoral College Loss
_ A President by Judicial
Fiat
10. The Republican
Criminals Who Shut Down the Miami-Dade Recount
These are some of the thugs who staged a riot at the
11. Spoiled ballots were
primarily due to systematic problems in equipment and the election process, not
due to characteristics of the voter such as education level or literacy.
Minorities were more
likely to have to vote on machines that were less reliable and had a larger
percentage of spoiled ballots than other voters. Minorities were systematically discriminated
against by the