Re: protection of results

[Mike Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On 8 Nov 2004, at 16:39, Brian Morrison wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:21:05 +0000 in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Richards
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Most states have a constitutional requirement to perform a complete
> > recount if the margin of victory falls within a certain margin (IIRC
> > for Florida it is 0.5%).
>
> Indeed, but wasn't this where a lot of the problems in 2000 originated?
> Recounts were called in circumstances where the recorded votes were
> difficult to check because of the way some of them were recorded.

That was the least of it.

Katherine Harris violated state law by not insisting on a complete 
recount of ALL the ballots in the state; her decision was overturned by 
the State Supreme Court and a recount in disputed regions of the state 
was begun.

So Bush's team filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court. 
That ruled (on partisan lines) that the count should stop because - 
firstly the recount of ballots produced by different voting systems 
used in the state did not afford equal protection to Bush (your point); 
and secondly that the state could not conclude the count before the 
December 12th when election results had to be certified by federal law.

The more that decision is reviewed the more it looks like they had come 
to their conclusion and then tried to find the legal argument to 
support it. I'd go with Justice John Paul Stevens:

“Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be 
inflicted by today's decision. 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,”

Best wishes,

Mike.