Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So the Trump supporters are defending Trump's failure to commit to accepting the results of the election and allegations of a rigged election with the Gore defense - trying to deflect by saying Al Gore did it.

here are examples from right here in RSP:
Dashi wrote:
Gawd, what did you all think about GORE?
How long did it take for him to concede?
Would there have been wall to wall coverage of this if he had said he wouldnt say if he would concede or not IMMEDIATELY?

jeremy wrote:
Is he following the AL Gore model ?

I just want to point out that it was Bush who challenged the Florida Supreme Court's decision to continue the vote recount, which is why the famous case is called Bush v. Gore.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clinton Smith
United States
Port Arthur
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I wonder why that case wasn't called Bush vs. Florida? Gore wasn't in charge of the election in Florida. I could research this but I don't feel like it.

Edit: Now I see. It was because Gore filed a complaint. A completely justifiable complaint.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clinton Smith
United States
Port Arthur
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

The difference between Trump and Gore is that the latter was trying to preserve the integrity of the election, and our democracy, by ensuring that the votes were properly counted. Trump, in contrast, is defecating on the integrity of the election, and our democracy, by insinuating without evidence that the election is rigged.
26 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How is my OP incorrect? Gore asked for a recount, it was granted, but it was Bush who pushed it to the Supreme Court. How is asking for a recount in a super close election even remotely close to calling an election rigged?


EDIT: Gore asked for a manual recount.
17 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.
Don't break your arm patting your buddies on the back, because your buddies are wrong.
Bush's margin of victory triggered a mandatory recount, that was Florida election law.
Democrats requested a manual recount, and it was Bush that sued to stop it.

Quote:
A capsule look at events beginning Nov. 7, 2000.

Nov. 7: Election Day
That evening, Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore each have close to an Electoral College majority.

Nov. 8:
Early in the morning, the lead in Florida, whose 25 electoral votes will be decisive, hinges on a few hundred votes. Gore calls Bush with a concession but later calls back and retracts it.

Nov. 9:
An incomplete count puts Bush's lead at 1,784 votes. Because of the narrow margin, a mandatory machine recount is ordered in all 67 counties.

Nov. 10:
The machine recount is completed in all but one county. Bush's lead is 327. Democrats request a manual recount in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia counties, where ballots are in dispute.

Nov. 11:
Palm Beach County announces that it will manually recount all 462,657 ballots cast there. Bush sues in U.S. District Court in Miami to bar manual counting.

Nov. 12:
Volusia County begins its recount. Democrats say they will sue the elections supervisor in Seminole County, where Republican Party workers were permitted to correct errors on thousands of applications for absentee ballots for Republicans.

Nov. 13:
Federal court refuses to stop manual recounts. Florida election officials announce plans to certify statewide results, not counting overseas absentee ballots, on Nov. 14. The Gore campaign sues to extend the deadline.

Nov. 14:
With full machine recount and Volusia County's hand count completed, Bush has a lead of 300 votes on this deadline day. A state judge upholds the deadline but says further recounts can be considered later. Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, a Republican, gives counties until 2 p.m. on Nov. 15 to give reasons for them.

Nov. 15:
Broward County's canvassing board decides to begin a manual recount of all 587,928 ballots cast there. Later in the day, Harris refuses requests for the recounts in Broward and Palm Beach counties to be included in the statewide certification. (Miami-Dade has not yet decided on a recount.)

Nov. 16:
The Florida Supreme Court permits manual recounts in Palm Beach and Broward counties but leaves it to a state judge to decide whether Harris must include those votes in the final tally. Hand counts begin in Palm Beach County, continue in Broward County and are considered by Miami-Dade.

Nov. 17:
Judge Terry P. Lewis of Leon County Circuit Court permits Harris to certify the election results and declare a winner without hand recounts. But the state Supreme Court puts a hold on that decision until it can consider a Gore appeal. Miami-Dade decides to conduct a recount.

Nov. 18:
After overseas absentee ballots are counted, Bush's lead grows to 930 votes. Bush allies complain of irregularities in the hand counting.

Nov. 20:
Lawyers for Bush and Gore argue before the Florida Supreme Court on whether hand counts are to be included in the final tally.

Nov. 21:
The Florida justices rule unanimously that hand counts in the three counties must be included, and set 5 p.m. on Nov. 26 as the earliest time for certification.

Nov. 22:
Bush lawyers appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state court effectively rewrote state election statutes after the vote. Miami-Dade cancels its manual recount, saying it does not have enough time to complete it by Nov. 26.

Nov. 23:
The state Supreme Court refuses Gore's request to require the counting to continue in Miami-Dade.

Nov. 26:
Harris declares Bush winner in Florida by 537 votes.

Nov. 27:
Gore sues to contest the election in Florida.

Nov. 28:
Judge N. Sanders Sauls of Leon County Circuit Court rejects Gore's request for immediate hand recount of disputed ballots from Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, saying a hearing is needed first.

Nov. 29:
Gore appeals to the Florida Supreme Court.

Dec. 1:
U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on Bush's appeal, which argues that the Florida Supreme Court improperly extended the Nov. 14 deadline for certification. Local Democrats file suit accusing Martin County canvassing board of mishandling absentee ballot applications.

Dec. 3:
Dick Cheney, in televised interviews, urges Gore to concede. Gore says he has given little thought to concession.

Dec. 4:
U.S. Supreme Court orders Florida Supreme Court to clarify its ruling on the extended certification date. Sauls rejects Gore's contest.

Dec. 6:
Florida legislative leaders call for special session to appoint electors pledged to Bush. Gore appeals Sauls' ruling to Florida Supreme Court.

Dec. 7:
The Florida Supreme Court hears arguments on Gore's contest.

Dec. 8:
The Florida justices, on a 4-3 vote, order immediate manual recount of all ballots in the state where no vote for president was machine-recorded -- perhaps 45,000 ballots.

Dec. 9:
On Bush's appeal, U.S. Supreme Court halts the manual count, pending a hearing.

Dec. 10:
Lawyers file briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bush team says the manual vote recount violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, and the Gore team says the issue is the importance of counting every vote.

Dec. 11:
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments.

Dec. 12:
The Florida House of Representatives votes to appoint electors for Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Florida Supreme Court, ruling 5-4 that there may be no further counting of Florida's disputed presidential votes.

Dec. 13:
Gore concedes; Bush, as president-elect, calls for reconciliation.


At any rate, disputing a razor-thin margin in one state that triggers a mandatory recount is not what Chris Wallace wanted to know from Trump. He wanted to know if he would accept the outcome, which Trump's ego (and ridiculous conspiracy theories) would not allow him to do.
34 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
Don't break your arm patting your buddies on the back, because your buddies are wrong.
Bush's margin of victory triggered a mandatory recount, that was Florida election law.
Democrats requested a manual recount, and it was Bush that sued to stop it.
You just had to ruin our reputation as a place too lazy to do research.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
What the mayor said. May I add, however, that in the lead-up to the vote, Al Gore never indicated directly or indirectly he believed the election which had not yet taken place was rigged in favor of George W. Bush. And after the elections, Gore sought clarification on the Florida vote and claimed irregularities, but overall did not say the entire national vote was pre-determined by sinister forces such as the MSM, the RNC, and, I don't know, the Easter Bunny.

The Gore Defense, therefore, is a false narrative of the events that actually happened.

And we should also note that Gore and Bush settled this out with grace and humility.
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clinton Smith
United States
Port Arthur
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

fightcitymayor wrote:
Bush sues in U.S. District Court in Miami to bar manual counting.


So, Bush, having defecated on the integrity of our election and our democracy, has much more in common with Trump than Gore does.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


Please note: Drew "Captin Legit" 1365 is not a valid source for information.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
For the masochists among us:

(from the Cornell web site -- fantastic place to go for SCOTUS decisions and cases btw)


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT


[December 12, 2000]

Per Curiam.

I

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n. 6). The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. ___.

The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ____ (per curiam) (Bush I). On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent, Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Governor Bush’s margin of victory was less than “one-half of a percent . . . of the votes cast,” an automatic machine recount was conducted under §102.141(4) of the election code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___—___ (slip. op., at 6—7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30—31).

On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Florida’s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. §102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to §102.168(3)(c), which provides that “[r]eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election” shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.

Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d. ____ (2000). The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gore’s challenge to the results certified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board’s determination that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, “legal votes.”

The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”). ___ So. 2d., at ___ (slip. op., at 22—23). Noting the closeness of the election, the Court explained that “[o]n this record, there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt.” Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 35). A “legal vote,” as determined by the Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter. ’ ” Id., at ____ (slip op., at 25). The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Observing that the contest provisions vest broad discretion in the circuit judge to “provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances,” Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000), the Supreme Court further held that the Circuit Court could order “the Supervisor of Elections and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes … to do so forthwith, said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the ballots are located.” ____ So. 2d, at ____ (slip. op., at 38).

The Supreme Court also determined that both Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a net gain of 215 and 168 legal votes for Vice President Gore. Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 33—34). Rejecting the Circuit Court’s conclusion that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the 215 net votes submitted past the November 26 deadline, the Supreme Court explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts. As to Miami-Dade County, the Court concluded that although the 168 votes identified were the result of a partial recount, they were “legal votes [that] could change the outcome of the election.” Id., at (slip op., at 34). The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to include those totals in the certified results, subject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount.

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.


II


The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon. Nationwide statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately choosing no candidate at all or some voter error, such as voting for two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot. See Ho, More Than 2M Ballots Uncounted, AP Online (Nov. 28, 2000); Kelley, Balloting Problems Not Rare But Only In A Very Close Election Do Mistakes And Mismarking Make A Difference, Omaha World-Herald (Nov. 15, 2000). In certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements.

This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.

Much of the controversy seems to revolve around ballot cards designed to be perforated by a stylus but which, either through error or deliberate omission, have not been perforated with sufficient precision for a machine to count them. In some cases a piece of the card–a chad–is hanging, say by two corners. In other cases there is no separation at all, just an indentation.

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.

The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.

The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. See Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 51) (Wells, J., dissenting) (“Should a county canvassing board count or not count a ‘dimpled chad’ where the voter is able to successfully dislodge the chad in every other contest on that ballot? Here, the county canvassing boards disagree”). As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.

The record provides some examples. A monitor in
Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.

An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.

The State Supreme Court ratified this uneven treatment. It mandated that the recount totals from two counties, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, be included in the certified total. The court also appeared to hold sub silentio that the recount totals from Broward County, which were not completed until after the original November 14 certification by the Secretary of State, were to be considered part of the new certified vote totals even though the county certification was not contested by Vice President Gore. Yet each of the counties used varying standards to determine what was a legal vote. Broward County used a more forgiving standard than Palm Beach County, and uncovered almost three times as many new votes, a result markedly disproportionate to the difference in population between the counties.

In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial processes that were under way.

That brings the analysis to yet a further equal protection problem. The votes certified by the court included a partial total from one county, Miami-Dade. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision thus gives no assurance that the recounts included in a final certification must be complete. Indeed, it is respondent’s submission that it would be consistent with the rules of the recount procedures to include whatever partial counts are done by the time of final certification, and we interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to permit this. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 21 (slip op., at 37, n. 21) (noting “practical difficulties” may control outcome of election, but certifying partial Miami-Dade total nonetheless). This accommodation no doubt results from the truncated contest period established by the Florida Supreme Court in Bush I, at respondents’ own urging. The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.

In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court’s decision raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together ad hoc teams comprised of judges from various Circuits who had no previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore, while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from objecting during the recount.

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections. The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. The problem, for instance, of the estimated 110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief Justice Wells called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 26 (slip op., at 45, n. 26).

Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

* * *
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.

It is so ordered.
**************************************
Now the decision has been enshrined in the hallowed halls of BGG and RSP. So it is written, so it is done.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


How so? Drew is once again merely playing in the weeds of his own making. There is zero equivalence between Al Gore and Donald Trump. In the infamous Bush/Gore election the entire issue devolved upon a single state in which the difference in vote counts was so statistically small that a recount was automatically triggered which raised significant issues of ballot handling standards.

In Trumps case, the vote hasn't even happened. We don't know whether any states will be even remotely that close or even if a close state would have a material outcome on the election as a whole. His positioning at this time represents nothing but a delegitimization of the results in advance of the event and is the height of political irresponsibility.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


The only thing throttled in this thread, is your IQ. From 80 to 64.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Wait a minute. Are we suggesting that GWB was never properly elected? The man who presided over disaster after disaster in America only to finally leave it in financial shambles, costing most of the citizens about 20% of their personal wealth?

Good times. Good Republican times.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

Wait a minute. Are we suggesting that GWB was never properly elected? The man who presided over disaster after disaster in America only to finally leave it in financial shambles, costing most of the citizens about 20% of their personal wealth?

Good times. Good Republican times.


The high earners that Drewber and BJ are, reaped all the benefits of GWB's terms.

Oh, forgot... they are the poor schlubs who got used by the rich people.

They're still poor, while the rich have long left their withered husks behind. But those withered husks are so brain dead, that they still carry the water for their masters. How nice... once subservient, always subservient.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


How so? Drew is once again merely playing in the weeds of his own making. There is zero equivalence between Al Gore and Donald Trump.


What the fucking fuck, Les? I didn't bring it up.


You were the first to pile on to the OP Drew. As such, I simply treated you as the resident standard bearer for this nonsense. Bush did take this to the US Supreme court and so became a part of the tussle over the legitimacy of the election. There is simply no rational comparison between Trumps position last night and Gore position back then.

bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


How so? Drew is once again merely playing in the weeds of his own making. There is zero equivalence between Al Gore and Donald Trump. In the infamous Bush/Gore election the entire issue devolved upon a single state in which the difference in vote counts was so statistically small that a recount was automatically triggered which raised significant issues of ballot handling standards.

In Trumps case, the vote hasn't even happened. We don't know whether any states will be even remotely that close or even if a close state would have a material outcome on the election as a whole. His positioning at this time represents nothing but a delegitimization of the results in advance of the event and is the height of political irresponsibility.


It's nothing of the sort. Democrats have been caught cheating in the primary and have been caught bragging about cheating in prior elections and about cheating in this election in the last week. It would be irresponsible to ignore it or belittle those revelations.


Look, facts are facts, but they are all not of equal relevance to the point at hand. When you say Democrats have been caught cheating it's lazy at best. What cheating? Are you talking about Acorn? Does the gathering of invalid signatures by some paid by the piece signature gatherer equate to actual voter fraud? Not really, someone actually has to show up and cast a vote for it to be voter fraud. Does sending an agitator to provoke a hostile response at a rally equate to voter fraud? No, someone has to show up and cast a fraudulent ballot. There has been lots of unsavory behavior on the part of both parties for years and such behavior should be addressed.

In recent days employees of Wells Fargo were caught making up client accounts to earn bonus money. Is that an indictment of the banking system? Does it mean all employees are corrupt or that Wells Fargo conducts zero legitimate business or even a majority of illegitimate business? Of course not such thinking would be completely lacking in critical analysis.

(Edited to add): P.S. Drew, sorry if it felt like I was piling on for no reason. This campaign has made it far more difficult for me to exercise self restraint. We've been on the opposite sides of many discussions but, as an ex-Republican, I have far more sympathy for some of the ultimate positions you and others here have taken. It's my perception that Trump is the single most dangerous candidate of my adult life so I tend to view his supporters in a very negative light. Don't take it too personally--it really is just the issues for me.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gore is not even relevant to this latest Trump debacle. Trump is saying the election is rigged before it's even taken place and saying he's going to question the results unless he wins. It's sad that we can't all agree that's a "bad thing". Drop the tribal loyalties for a second.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Also, the comment about "This is why the case is called Bush et al v. Gore!" ignores how cases are named.

Here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicati...

Quote:
All cases are named according to the parties involved. When there are two parties, the first name is the party filing the petition against the second party, or the second name on the case. Because one side might appeal a ruling as the case moves through the court system, and the other side might appeal the next ruling, the party names may switch in order, accordingly, along the way. This can be confusing when reading about the history of a case, but there is a logical legal explanation. The case name that appears before the Supreme Court is the final case name for research and archival purposes.


In other words, the way a case ends up being named at the SCOTUS level doesn't necessarily indicate who the original plaintiff was.

Okay, my bad. Not something I knew. I always thought the plaintiff was first.

Of course, the case name is not particularly relevant to the irrelevance of the case as a defense of Trump's statement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
If your point is that it's bad for Trump to suggest the forthcoming vote will be illegitimate before the election, then isn't it worse for 20 members of Congress to refuse to accept the results of an election two months later? For a member of the Senate to declare the sitting president illegitimate two years later while we're at war? For the Secretary of State to go to a foreign country almost a decade later and suggest that the election was stolen?

Democrats had no problem calling the election of George Bush illegitimate for years afterwards, even during a time of war, and many still refuse to accept the recounts.

Isn't that far more harmful to our Republic, to our electoral process, than what Trump said last week?

Or is it different when Democrats declare an election and a sitting President illegitimate?





It won't matter, Drew. No need for 5-4 Supreme Court decisions for this upcoming election. It will be a blowout.

That's what makes Trump's "rigged election" comments so dangerous. His supporters are just dumb enough to believe him. They thrive on conjecture and zero supporting evidence.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
After years of discussing voter fraud in RSP and having lefties deny its existence, it has been pretty satisfying to see that I've been proven 100% correct.

Are you talking about the O'Keefe video that Trump paid to have made? O'Keefe is pretty much the definition of a "pretty legit" source.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
If your point is that it's bad for Trump to suggest the forthcoming vote will be illegitimate before the election, then isn't it worse for 20 members of Congress to refuse to accept the results of an election two months later? For a member of the Senate to declare the sitting president illegitimate two years later while we're at war? For the Secretary of State to go to a foreign country almost a decade later and suggest that the election was stolen?

Democrats had no problem calling the election of George Bush illegitimate for years afterwards, even during a time of war, and many still refuse to accept the recounts.

Isn't that far more harmful to our Republic, to our electoral process, than what Trump said last week?

Or is it different when Democrats declare an election and a sitting President illegitimate?




No what Trump said is the more harmful. He is calling the election a fraud before it even happens. Declaring that if someone who is behind in every single poll is not elected then there is fraud. Calling into doubt the core of our democracy, based on the fact that he is losing.

Perhaps if you did not have your nose so fully ensconced Trump's
scrotum you would be able to figure this out. Alas not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Did you miss the Democrat operative bragging on video that they bought cars with Wisconsin plates through a shell corporation, brought people into the state with those cars, and used them to vote? It's been in the news the last couple days although many outlets are bending over backwards to ignore it.

After years of discussing voter fraud in RSP and having lefties deny its existence, it has been pretty satisfying to see that I've been proven 100% correct. It would be great if it just meant a good ego stroke for me. Unfortunately, Democrats' behavior threatens the very basis of our democratic processes. They should probably just rename their party.

You keep mentioning this and no one has taken the bait so apparently everyone has indeed missed this. I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to enlighten and provide a link?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


How so? Drew is once again merely playing in the weeds of his own making. There is zero equivalence between Al Gore and Donald Trump.


What the fucking fuck, Les? I didn't bring it up.


You were the first to pile on to the OP Drew. As such, I simply treated you as the resident standard bearer for this nonsense. Bush did take this to the US Supreme court and so became a part of the tussle over the legitimacy of the election. There is simply no rational comparison between Trumps position last night and Gore position back then.

bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


How so? Drew is once again merely playing in the weeds of his own making. There is zero equivalence between Al Gore and Donald Trump. In the infamous Bush/Gore election the entire issue devolved upon a single state in which the difference in vote counts was so statistically small that a recount was automatically triggered which raised significant issues of ballot handling standards.

In Trumps case, the vote hasn't even happened. We don't know whether any states will be even remotely that close or even if a close state would have a material outcome on the election as a whole. His positioning at this time represents nothing but a delegitimization of the results in advance of the event and is the height of political irresponsibility.


It's nothing of the sort. Democrats have been caught cheating in the primary and have been caught bragging about cheating in prior elections and about cheating in this election in the last week. It would be irresponsible to ignore it or belittle those revelations.


Look, facts are facts, but they are all not of equal relevance to the point at hand. When you say Democrats have been caught cheating it's lazy at best. What cheating? Are you talking about Acorn? Does the gathering of invalid signatures by some paid by the piece signature gatherer equate to actual voter fraud? Not really, someone actually has to show up and cast a vote for it to be voter fraud. Does sending an agitator to provoke a hostile response at a rally equate to voter fraud? No, someone has to show up and cast a fraudulent ballot. There has been lots of unsavory behavior on the part of both parties for years and such behavior should be addressed.

In recent days employees of Wells Fargo were caught making up client accounts to earn bonus money. Is that an indictment of the banking system? Does it mean all employees are corrupt or that Wells Fargo conducts zero legitimate business or even a majority of illegitimate business? Of course not such thinking would be completely lacking in critical analysis.

(Edited to add): P.S. Drew, sorry if it felt like I was piling on for no reason. This campaign has made it far more difficult for me to exercise self restraint. We've been on the opposite sides of many discussions but, as an ex-Republican, I have far more sympathy for some of the ultimate positions you and others here have taken. It's my perception that Trump is the single most dangerous candidate of my adult life so I tend to view his supporters in a very negative light. Don't take it too personally--it really is just the issues for me.


Did you miss the Democrat operative bragging on video that they bought cars with Wisconsin plates through a shell corporation, brought people into the state with those cars, and used them to vote? It's been in the news the last couple days although many outlets are bending over backwards to ignore it.

After years of discussing voter fraud in RSP and having lefties deny its existence, it has been pretty satisfying to see that I've been proven 100% correct. It would be great if it just meant a good ego stroke for me. Unfortunately, Democrats' behavior threatens the very basis of our democratic processes. They should probably just rename their party.


Hey, if your time is spent chasing conspiracy theories, then our side is good with that.

Hey, Wisconsin for HRC. Ron Johnson ist kaput.

Thanks for the hard work in getting Feingold elected.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


How so? Drew is once again merely playing in the weeds of his own making. There is zero equivalence between Al Gore and Donald Trump.


What the fucking fuck, Les? I didn't bring it up.


You were the first to pile on to the OP Drew. As such, I simply treated you as the resident standard bearer for this nonsense. Bush did take this to the US Supreme court and so became a part of the tussle over the legitimacy of the election. There is simply no rational comparison between Trumps position last night and Gore position back then.

bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
OP completely throttled in the first response, 12 minutes after posting. Other than a Dashi or Milum thread, that might be a record.


How so? Drew is once again merely playing in the weeds of his own making. There is zero equivalence between Al Gore and Donald Trump. In the infamous Bush/Gore election the entire issue devolved upon a single state in which the difference in vote counts was so statistically small that a recount was automatically triggered which raised significant issues of ballot handling standards.

In Trumps case, the vote hasn't even happened. We don't know whether any states will be even remotely that close or even if a close state would have a material outcome on the election as a whole. His positioning at this time represents nothing but a delegitimization of the results in advance of the event and is the height of political irresponsibility.


It's nothing of the sort. Democrats have been caught cheating in the primary and have been caught bragging about cheating in prior elections and about cheating in this election in the last week. It would be irresponsible to ignore it or belittle those revelations.


Look, facts are facts, but they are all not of equal relevance to the point at hand. When you say Democrats have been caught cheating it's lazy at best. What cheating? Are you talking about Acorn? Does the gathering of invalid signatures by some paid by the piece signature gatherer equate to actual voter fraud? Not really, someone actually has to show up and cast a vote for it to be voter fraud. Does sending an agitator to provoke a hostile response at a rally equate to voter fraud? No, someone has to show up and cast a fraudulent ballot. There has been lots of unsavory behavior on the part of both parties for years and such behavior should be addressed.

In recent days employees of Wells Fargo were caught making up client accounts to earn bonus money. Is that an indictment of the banking system? Does it mean all employees are corrupt or that Wells Fargo conducts zero legitimate business or even a majority of illegitimate business? Of course not such thinking would be completely lacking in critical analysis.

(Edited to add): P.S. Drew, sorry if it felt like I was piling on for no reason. This campaign has made it far more difficult for me to exercise self restraint. We've been on the opposite sides of many discussions but, as an ex-Republican, I have far more sympathy for some of the ultimate positions you and others here have taken. It's my perception that Trump is the single most dangerous candidate of my adult life so I tend to view his supporters in a very negative light. Don't take it too personally--it really is just the issues for me.


Did you miss the Democrat operative bragging on video that they bought cars with Wisconsin plates through a shell corporation, brought people into the state with those cars, and used them to vote? It's been in the news the last couple days although many outlets are bending over backwards to ignore it.

After years of discussing voter fraud in RSP and having lefties deny its existence, it has been pretty satisfying to see that I've been proven 100% correct. It would be great if it just meant a good ego stroke for me. Unfortunately, Democrats' behavior threatens the very basis of our democratic processes. They should probably just rename their party.


Good suggestion... I recommend Republican Killers as the new party name. The numbers will back that up.

Too bad all that Tea Pud momentum is now dead in its crib.

Well, you can pine for 2010 and 2012.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Elfbane wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Did you miss the Democrat operative bragging on video that they bought cars with Wisconsin plates through a shell corporation, brought people into the state with those cars, and used them to vote? It's been in the news the last couple days although many outlets are bending over backwards to ignore it.

After years of discussing voter fraud in RSP and having lefties deny its existence, it has been pretty satisfying to see that I've been proven 100% correct. It would be great if it just meant a good ego stroke for me. Unfortunately, Democrats' behavior threatens the very basis of our democratic processes. They should probably just rename their party.

You keep mentioning this and no one has taken the bait so apparently everyone has indeed missed this. I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to enlighten and provide a link?

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1655872/no-one-going-po...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Elfbane wrote:
You keep mentioning this and no one has taken the bait so apparently everyone has indeed missed this. I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to enlighten and provide a link?


Wait, really?

The New York Times finally reported on it today, so you'll be brought up to speed soon and you won't even have to leave your bubble! Granted, it's got New York Times spin to it. But even with that, it's still pretty damaging to the Democratic Party. Will you join with me in calling for an immediate investigation before the election?



Voter fraud. It's an epidemic.

http://wisconsinwatch.org/2016/09/voter-id-states-including-...

A News21 analysis four years ago of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states found that while some fraud had occurred since 2000, the rate was infinitesimal compared with the 146 million registered voters in that 12-year span. The analysis found 10 cases of voter impersonation — the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.