Whose Equal Protection

>>>>> "tom" == Tom Georges <tom.georges-5iEtObel70BqZUUS1fKJaQC/[email protected]> writes:

   > Mr. Clark, I must respond to your article with disagreement.  If
   > (and I do not believe the "if" has been satisfied) the votes in
   > question were objectively "legal" votes, you and I would be in
   > full agreement in chastising such a decision as made by the US
   > Supreme Court.  

I don't understand "objectively 'legal'". What work do the
scare-quotes do, if any?

   >However, I believe that the legality of those
   > votes is the ESSENCE of the issue. That is, are they legal votes?

Can voter intent be determined? If so, they are legal votes. If not,
they aren't. That's my understanding of the legal rule. I don't think
anyone has been disputing the *rule*.

   > By what standard do we define a ballot as "legal?"  

Again, what is up with the scare-quotes? As for the answer, that's
very easy: by the relevant *legal* standard, of course. How else?

   > How can one
   > CONCLUSIVELY discern the intent of a voter by a mismarked or
   > ambiguous ballot, if one can at all?  

Well, it's not easy, and I don't know that the rule requires any level
of certainty, but I suspect one can attempt to do this by following
the very detailed specifications set down in Florida law.

And that's precisely the process the Court delayed in an attempt,
now clearly successful, to circumvent the fashioning of a remedy, that
is, a uniform standard to making just the determination you're asking
about. Why did they do that? (I'm not sure 'uniform standard' means
here what most people seem to think, but that's a different
question. Bush's lawyers were *clearly* confused about it, though
perhaps that's too naive: they were almost certainly arguing a
position that know to be false. But they can at least plead
professional obligation or something.)

   > Does the law even allow for
   > such recounts (with the sole purpose of ascertaining the intent
   > of the voter) in cases where there has been no ballot counting
   > fraud, failure, or other such ballot corruption? 

That's not the circumstances but yes I think it does. I'm not sure
about the legal requirement on this point, however. Clearly, though,
there were *massive* ballot-counting failures. Those shitty old
machines have tons of failures. That's not disputed by anyone.

   > The FL Supreme
   > Court ordered the counting of ballots of questionable intent (if
   > not questionable legality, given that a ballot is a legal
   > document) without regard to any such standard; without
   > instructions to assure that the ballots be counted in a fair and
   > consistent manner; and with blatant disregard to established
   > processes in place (including, but not limited to, the authority
   > of the Secretary of State of FL, the FL legislature, and the
   > existing statutes of the State of FL).

That's not true. Florida statute establishes standards for all of this.

   > On the other hand, if I were a Gore supporter with no scruples
   > and excessive self-interest, I would argue that we should recount
   > as often as necessary to see him elected.  Hey!  Wait a minute!
   > I AM a Gore supporter!  But I'm not mindless, either.

I'm neither a Gore nor Bush supporter so I'm not sure what your point
is. Of course I don't believe I'm w/out scruples, but that's for
others to judge. As for being mindless, I know I'm often wrong, but
I'm pretty sure I'm not mindless. Wait... I'm certain I'm not
mindless, else how could I ask the question? :>

Best,
Kendall Clark