- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
This is a redirection of a conversation between Kandahar and myself.
For the past history of the conversation, see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/16427-former-president-ford-dead-93-a.html
No.
The state law allowing/mandating manual evaluation of ballots did not prescribe a specific standard for doing so -- its terminology, 'to determine the intent of the voter' was too vague -- thus leaving the standard to the local boards. Therefore the standard would vary from county to county. If the value of a given ballot can change depending on where it is evaluated, there can be no equal protection, and that was exactly the case in FL.
So, the 'determine the intent of the voter' statute was all that FL election law had, and it did not provide EP as per the court in the 7-2 decision. As such, it violated the Constitution and was invalidated as a means by which the ballots could be recounted. Without any legal statute prescribing the manner in which to recount the ballots, they could not be counted.
This law could not be changed to prescribe a specific standard as changing election law during an election violates federal law; a standard could not be set by a court because that would be either a change to the law (already mentioned) or the creation of new election law, which is the sole purview of the legislature.
And certainly, the court could not order the legislature to pass a new law.
And so, there was no remedy to the EP question.
For the past history of the conversation, see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/16427-former-president-ford-dead-93-a.html
No.
The state law allowing/mandating manual evaluation of ballots did not prescribe a specific standard for doing so -- its terminology, 'to determine the intent of the voter' was too vague -- thus leaving the standard to the local boards. Therefore the standard would vary from county to county. If the value of a given ballot can change depending on where it is evaluated, there can be no equal protection, and that was exactly the case in FL.
So, the 'determine the intent of the voter' statute was all that FL election law had, and it did not provide EP as per the court in the 7-2 decision. As such, it violated the Constitution and was invalidated as a means by which the ballots could be recounted. Without any legal statute prescribing the manner in which to recount the ballots, they could not be counted.
This law could not be changed to prescribe a specific standard as changing election law during an election violates federal law; a standard could not be set by a court because that would be either a change to the law (already mentioned) or the creation of new election law, which is the sole purview of the legislature.
And certainly, the court could not order the legislature to pass a new law.
And so, there was no remedy to the EP question.