Illegal Ballots? Hooey.
Copyright © 2000 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas).
Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel111000.shtml
By Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute
Advocates of overturning the results of the presidential election are
claiming that the butterfly ballots used in Palm Beach County were
"illegal" ballots that violate Florida law. A quick look at the law shows
that the claim is ludicrous.
At issue is Florida Revised Statutes section 101.191, which specifies
"Form of general election Ballot." The relevant part of the statute
requires that ballots contain the following instruction: "TO VOTE for a
candidate whose name is printed on the ballot, mark a cross (X) in the
blank space at the RIGHT of the name of the candidate for whom you
desire to vote." Read literally, this language would outlaw butterfly
ballots, and every other form of punch-card ballot, since the voter
punches a hole in order to vote, but does not "mark a cross." Likewise,
voting machines would also be illegal, since the voter pulls a lever, and
does not "mark a cross."
Florida legislators, however, are not so silly as to pass a law banning
punch cards or voting machines. Nor are Palm Beach County election
officials so grossly incompetent that they would invent a new method of
voting which is prohibited by Florida law. You see, the very first
sentence of section 101.191 is: "The general election ballot shall be in
substantially the following form:" (emphasis added).
How likely is it that a Florida court will overturn an election on the theory
that an instruction to punch out the hole next to the candidate's arrow is
not "substantially" the same as "mark a cross (X) in the blank space"?
If the place to vote with an (X) or a hole-punch is to the left of a
candidate's name, rather than at the right, is the ballot form illegal? Even
though the relevant statute only asks for "substantial" rather than literal
adherence to the sample form?
The judicial branch of government has a strong institutional interest in not
turning itself into forum for election losers to try to change the
results--especially on the basis of claims that could have been raised
before the ballots were distributed, and especially when the claims are
founded on a hyperliteral reading of a statute whose first sentence is an
instruction against hyperliteral reading.
The Gore lawsuits are not really about winning a case in trial court that
will be sustained on appeal. Rather, the obvious purpose of bringing
cases on such flimsy legal grounds is to create a constitutional crisis, and
thereby cause Bush electors to vote for Gore.
Copyright © 2000 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas).
Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel111000.shtml
By Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute
Advocates of overturning the results of the presidential election are
claiming that the butterfly ballots used in Palm Beach County were
"illegal" ballots that violate Florida law. A quick look at the law shows
that the claim is ludicrous.
At issue is Florida Revised Statutes section 101.191, which specifies
"Form of general election Ballot." The relevant part of the statute
requires that ballots contain the following instruction: "TO VOTE for a
candidate whose name is printed on the ballot, mark a cross (X) in the
blank space at the RIGHT of the name of the candidate for whom you
desire to vote." Read literally, this language would outlaw butterfly
ballots, and every other form of punch-card ballot, since the voter
punches a hole in order to vote, but does not "mark a cross." Likewise,
voting machines would also be illegal, since the voter pulls a lever, and
does not "mark a cross."
Florida legislators, however, are not so silly as to pass a law banning
punch cards or voting machines. Nor are Palm Beach County election
officials so grossly incompetent that they would invent a new method of
voting which is prohibited by Florida law. You see, the very first
sentence of section 101.191 is: "The general election ballot shall be in
substantially the following form:" (emphasis added).
How likely is it that a Florida court will overturn an election on the theory
that an instruction to punch out the hole next to the candidate's arrow is
not "substantially" the same as "mark a cross (X) in the blank space"?
If the place to vote with an (X) or a hole-punch is to the left of a
candidate's name, rather than at the right, is the ballot form illegal? Even
though the relevant statute only asks for "substantial" rather than literal
adherence to the sample form?
The judicial branch of government has a strong institutional interest in not
turning itself into forum for election losers to try to change the
results--especially on the basis of claims that could have been raised
before the ballots were distributed, and especially when the claims are
founded on a hyperliteral reading of a statute whose first sentence is an
instruction against hyperliteral reading.
The Gore lawsuits are not really about winning a case in trial court that
will be sustained on appeal. Rather, the obvious purpose of bringing
cases on such flimsy legal grounds is to create a constitutional crisis, and
thereby cause Bush electors to vote for Gore.