question for any lawyer

[deguello]

florida law gives canvassing boards latitude to ascertain the intent of the voter, but that raises some questions that i haven't been able to get answered.

is there a legal definition of 'ascertain', or does use of that word suggest any implied standard to prove intent?

how do you reconcile this with the legal requirement (if one exists) of the voter to follow instructions and fill out the ballot correctly, and how can election results be considered valid if there is no assumption that any of the submitted ballots were correctly filled out?

what impact does this have on the common law concept of 'one man-one vote'? if there are 10000 disputed ballots in a re-count, you've effectively given 3 people 10000 votes.

is there a legal definition of a vote? does the definition agree with the common sense position that intent is only intent until it becomes an act, and you shouldn't count a vote until somebody casts a vote?

thank you

 

[Seronac]

I have asked an attorney I know to answer these questions. But, please keep in mind that he's a husband and father who must use his time to support his family, so his answer may be short and direct, or may not come at all. Since he's an honest lawyer, he doesn't make whole lot of money! Also, in addition to his Juris Doctorate, he got is Bachelor's in Political Science.

However, I would think that the legal definitions of "acertain" and "vote" would be similar to those found in any good, complete, unabridged dictionary.

As far as I'm concerned, if a voter can't follow the instructions on the ballot, and does it wrong, then that is the voter's problem. He/she should have known well enough or asked for help.

I recently heard on the radio of a study that was done that showed that most of those who vote Democrat are of lower income, lower intelligence, and under-educated. Interesting parallel, isn't it?

 

[Gary H]

Likely, this election will come down to: count the dimple ballots, or not. If the less than Supremes allow the hand count to be certified, dimples will be the issue.

Would allowing dimples constitute changing the rules in the middle of the election process, thereby violating federal statute?

Is there an equal protection arguement to be made in federal court?