Return to Index
FORMER FL SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE EXPLAINS WHY HAND RECOUNT SHOULDN’T GO FORWARD
November 11 2000 at 12:51 AM
No score for this post Joe (no login)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT: FORMER FL SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE EXPLAINS WHY HAND RECOUNT SHOULDN’T GO FORWARD
Politics/Elections News Keywords: BUSH GORE FLORIDA
Source: NIGHTLINE
Published: 11-11-2000
Posted on 11/10/2000 22:00:00 PST by lowteksh
This response, from a former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice, should form part of the Bush response to Gore's "Let's keep counting until I get the results I like" strategy. They have given Gore a fair vote, a fair recount and should, from this point forward claim that any further adjustments a disenfranchisement of their campaign. Plus there was an interesting scenario discussed whereby Florida would send their electors for George W. Bush based on the current results and let the House settle it if Gore continues to push the matter. Enjoy!
Audience Member: In light of the news this evening, and the Bush campaign files an injunction to stop the hand count, and the Gore campaign counters, what happens next? And is the injunction a violation of the Florida law requiring a recount?
Gerald Kogan, Former Chief Justice, Florida Supreme Court: Well, actually, there has been a recount. But it has been a machine recount. And now they want, as I understand it, a hand recount. I don’t know of any provision in Florida which would allow them after having the machine recount to go ahead and have a hand recount. As a matter of fact, I can’t recall any instance where there have been hand recounts. Now there might be somewhere, up in the panhandle, or the smaller counties, but you’ve got to understand: How do you hand recount hundreds of thousands of ballots, you know, in just one county alone. And also when you’re doing it, there are little tabs that will be hanging off. Now is that hanging off because going through the machine it was scratched off? Or did somebody punch it? Or did somebody while counting it brush it off? That’s one of the worst ways in the world.
He went on to dismiss Ted Koppel’s contention that this was necessary to record under-punched ballots.
Koppel raised the point of the under-punched ballots and the judge pretty much insinuated that the Bush camp could contest any changes by saying that human error and third-generation handling of the ballots could have caused tabs to fall out, get accidently torn out, etc. They didn't really dwell on it too much and it was redundant to the earlier statements which is why I didn't transcribe it.
Another interesting exchange in the program occurred earlier in the show when a member of the audience brought up a very interesting angle of recourse that the Republicans could take in conjunction with a legal dispute involving the hand recount. Much like the 1876 election, if the Republican electors from Florida were to show up on December 18 (irrespective of how Florida ultimately votes after the third or fourth or fifth recount) the proper set of electors would be acknowledged by the Congress via a vote of the House. If that vote were to go along the partisan lines that would be expected, the Republican electors from Florida would be recognized and Bush would win the election. Considering the fact that Bush won the election, won the recount and – if they follow-through with their court action – they could claim that the election is over and that the electors would be sent. I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of how this would be viewed legally, but I thought it was an interesting point that could virtually guarantee the election for Bush.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts. Respond to this message
Create your own forum at Network54
Copyright © 2000 Network54. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
FORMER FL SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE EXPLAINS WHY HAND RECOUNT SHOULDN’T GO FORWARD
November 11 2000 at 12:51 AM
No score for this post Joe (no login)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT: FORMER FL SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE EXPLAINS WHY HAND RECOUNT SHOULDN’T GO FORWARD
Politics/Elections News Keywords: BUSH GORE FLORIDA
Source: NIGHTLINE
Published: 11-11-2000
Posted on 11/10/2000 22:00:00 PST by lowteksh
This response, from a former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice, should form part of the Bush response to Gore's "Let's keep counting until I get the results I like" strategy. They have given Gore a fair vote, a fair recount and should, from this point forward claim that any further adjustments a disenfranchisement of their campaign. Plus there was an interesting scenario discussed whereby Florida would send their electors for George W. Bush based on the current results and let the House settle it if Gore continues to push the matter. Enjoy!
Audience Member: In light of the news this evening, and the Bush campaign files an injunction to stop the hand count, and the Gore campaign counters, what happens next? And is the injunction a violation of the Florida law requiring a recount?
Gerald Kogan, Former Chief Justice, Florida Supreme Court: Well, actually, there has been a recount. But it has been a machine recount. And now they want, as I understand it, a hand recount. I don’t know of any provision in Florida which would allow them after having the machine recount to go ahead and have a hand recount. As a matter of fact, I can’t recall any instance where there have been hand recounts. Now there might be somewhere, up in the panhandle, or the smaller counties, but you’ve got to understand: How do you hand recount hundreds of thousands of ballots, you know, in just one county alone. And also when you’re doing it, there are little tabs that will be hanging off. Now is that hanging off because going through the machine it was scratched off? Or did somebody punch it? Or did somebody while counting it brush it off? That’s one of the worst ways in the world.
He went on to dismiss Ted Koppel’s contention that this was necessary to record under-punched ballots.
Koppel raised the point of the under-punched ballots and the judge pretty much insinuated that the Bush camp could contest any changes by saying that human error and third-generation handling of the ballots could have caused tabs to fall out, get accidently torn out, etc. They didn't really dwell on it too much and it was redundant to the earlier statements which is why I didn't transcribe it.
Another interesting exchange in the program occurred earlier in the show when a member of the audience brought up a very interesting angle of recourse that the Republicans could take in conjunction with a legal dispute involving the hand recount. Much like the 1876 election, if the Republican electors from Florida were to show up on December 18 (irrespective of how Florida ultimately votes after the third or fourth or fifth recount) the proper set of electors would be acknowledged by the Congress via a vote of the House. If that vote were to go along the partisan lines that would be expected, the Republican electors from Florida would be recognized and Bush would win the election. Considering the fact that Bush won the election, won the recount and – if they follow-through with their court action – they could claim that the election is over and that the electors would be sent. I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of how this would be viewed legally, but I thought it was an interesting point that could virtually guarantee the election for Bush.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts. Respond to this message
Create your own forum at Network54
Copyright © 2000 Network54. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement