MaxedOutMama

Once again, I have to take issue with the post. I had the misfortune of not only being in law school at the time of Bush v Gore, but be in Con Law class where we picked apart the ruling for 3 solid weeks (the days is a lot to study any case, much less than three weeks). Sisyphus is taking very, very interpretive license with the decision (If I have time tomorrow, I'll post them on his site). And then he tries to transpose it on to the Washington election? I don't think he really sees the inversion of the two sides. By his analysis, he should be chastisine the Republicans, not the Democrats. So far, the re-count has gone according to law.
 

I was going to put up a whole piece on his site to debunk his notions, but I just ended up putting a short rebut (its getting late). He just plays way too fast and loose with the facts. The Washington State decision didn't say anything remotely close to what he says it does. I am not sure if he doesn't know, or doesn't care, but in the end, he is nothing more than a Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore - someone willing to twist ANYTHING into what they want it to be. I have the greatest amount of respect for your posts, MOM. I don't always agree with everything you say, but it is at least an honest approach, and that is why I keep coming back to read. I think you are giving this Sisyphus hack way too much credit. Just my two cents...
 

Dingo,

I hope you do post your analysis, as a comment or on your site (perhaps both?). I'll be looking for them.

I have to say that I thought the 2000 decision was the right one. I read the decision pretty carefully, and I thought the SC justices did the best they could with an extremely bad situation. I would not like to see close elections decided by district by district litigation. Each side would always be able to cherry-pick favorable districts to litigate, and would.

I don't understand your logic about the Republicans in WA. I didn't see Sisyphus' conclusion that the WA election would generate a lot more litigation in the future either. There again, I think the WA SC had to pick between two bad options in the second case, and chose the more logical one. How could you write a decision saying that votes excluded by error could not be counted?

But Dingo, if it had been the other way around, Dems would have taken that case back to the WA SC just as the Reps did. What I thought was more telling was the problems reconciling the count of voters and ballots. The King County election board seemed very sloppy. The Ohio recount turned up a few much larger errors there as well. Not a very comforting thought for a voter.

As far as I'm concerned, both the 2000 and 2004 elections are probably going to make voters more interested and concerned in the outcomes and the process, and it's a good thing.

I don't like these paperless voting machines. I like the idea of a voter tabulating his or her ballot by machine (for instant feedback), but I think paper ballots should be kept as a backup for recounts, and stamped by the machine to show they were registered. That way no one could go back and futz them.

We're enough of a technological society that we can come up with better ways than this!!!
 

In brief... (I'll try to pull up the case and re read it again and see what I am missing out of this later on)

Ok, for one, Florida law allows for votes not counted in the initial count but were "legally cast" can be counted in the recount. Sisyphus conveniently didn't mention this.

Second, Bush in 2000 was arguing the Florida recount was unconstitutional because there were no uniform standards. The SC agreed. The petitioners (Dems) in Washington WERE asking for uniform standards. That was the relief requested in the petition (Again, Sisyphus forgot to mention this). This is exactly what the SC said Florida was not doing and where the court found the unconstitutional aspect. Thus, the Dems were completely in line by seeking that relief and following what was held in 2000. The Washington court denied petition and than reversed itself later.

Third, in 2000 there was a federal deadline in which the recount had to be completed by. Because Florida could not meet that deadline (supposedly) the SC found a partial recount also to be unconstitutional. There was no federal deadline in Washington. In 2000, if Florida could have had uniform standards and where not limited by the deadline, the recount would have been granted. Again, Sisyphus doesn't account for this.

Fourth, there is NO federal guarantee for citizens rights to vote for electors for president. There IS a guarantee under the state law. Federal elections are beholden to federal constitution - state elections are beholden to state constitution.

Fifth, a major component of the Florida recount was determining the voters "intent" (hanging chads). This was a big part of the "uneven treatment" because the different counties were using different standards. This had no part in the Washington recount.

Therefore, (if I have written this in a legible manner) you can see that the two cases are extremely divergent in most areas, but where they are similar, Democrats were actually following the opinion of Bush v Gore in the petition before the Washington court. Sisyphus is complaining about Democrats doing exactly what they should have done according to the SC where Bush v. Gore is similar, and Sisyphus is comparing apples to oranges where the cases are different, and even though they are not comparable, he is drawing erroneous conclusions (knowingly or unknowingly).

I think that, from a legal standpoint, the Republicans are doing what they should be doing (challenging it in court). If they have an issue, take it to court and ask for a remedy (just like Bush did in Florida). That is what the courts are there for. Politically, I think it is stupid. After four years of hearing that Democrats are whiners because we wanted a recount in Florida and now they want a revote? Pot... Kettle... Hello? Everything that was being done in Florida flowed from actual statute. Florida law allowed for the recount of specific counties. In Washington, there is NO prevision for a recount. So, who is rewriting election law as Sisyphus contends? Democrats or Republicans.

And yes, I think Democrats would pursue legal options in the courts (as they did). I don't think they would have asked for a re-vote though.