Official Florida Law on Paper Ballots.
November 9, 2000 3:49 PM Subscribe
Official Florida Law on Paper Ballots. I've been reading from the pundits that the Florida ballot may be illegal because it "specifies that voters mark an X in the blank space to the right of the name of the candidate they want to vote for." (Quote from MSNBC)
However, the Florida statue I found says "opposite such candidate's name." Has anyone heard this argument, and if the Dems are actually gonna try it?
That is one of two statutes being quoted. The other one, quoted in the St Pete Times in a sidebar I couldn't locate online, specifically says that that mark must be "to the right of the candidate's name", which would seem to rule out on it's face the 'butterfly ballot' used in Palm Beach.
In any event, it's certainly a CLM on the part of the Palm Beach Supervisor of Election, who decided on the ballot design.
posted by baylink at 4:46 PM on November 9, 2000
In any event, it's certainly a CLM on the part of the Palm Beach Supervisor of Election, who decided on the ballot design.
posted by baylink at 4:46 PM on November 9, 2000
The butterfly ballot is considered mechanical, and therefore not covered by said statutes.
posted by Dreama at 5:15 PM on November 9, 2000
posted by Dreama at 5:15 PM on November 9, 2000
I feel real sorry for the person that designed that ballot. I'd definitely consider moving out of the country if I was her.
posted by gyc at 6:54 PM on November 9, 2000
posted by gyc at 6:54 PM on November 9, 2000
Thanks, Dreama, for clearing that up. Somebody better call Robert Wexler's office and tell him.
posted by mikewas at 8:22 PM on November 9, 2000
posted by mikewas at 8:22 PM on November 9, 2000
The butterfly ballot is considered mechanical, and therefore not covered by said statutes.
That seems to be the case, all right. If you look at the entire chapter of the statutes on Voting Methods and Procedure, you'll find this:
101.5609 Ballot requirements.--
(1) When an electronic or electromechanical voting system utilizes a ballot card or paper ballot which is distributed to electors, the ballot shall meet the following requirements: [...]
(6) Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as is compatible with the type of system used.
So frankly, the ballot looks legitimate to me.
posted by webmutant at 12:15 AM on November 10, 2000
That seems to be the case, all right. If you look at the entire chapter of the statutes on Voting Methods and Procedure, you'll find this:
101.5609 Ballot requirements.--
(1) When an electronic or electromechanical voting system utilizes a ballot card or paper ballot which is distributed to electors, the ballot shall meet the following requirements: [...]
(6) Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as is compatible with the type of system used.
So frankly, the ballot looks legitimate to me.
posted by webmutant at 12:15 AM on November 10, 2000
Nope, still not. Sorry.
The statute also specifies the order in which the candidates must be on the ballot, and as far as I can tell, it's talking about the *vote*, not the label. The *votes* (the holes) had Buchanan second, rather than the third or fourth that might be expected.
So far as I could see, the order of the *labels* was not what was being specified.
In any event, I can't see a judge dismissing this on ground that the difference is immaterial... not if he wants to keep his job.
posted by baylink at 7:52 AM on November 10, 2000
The statute also specifies the order in which the candidates must be on the ballot, and as far as I can tell, it's talking about the *vote*, not the label. The *votes* (the holes) had Buchanan second, rather than the third or fourth that might be expected.
So far as I could see, the order of the *labels* was not what was being specified.
In any event, I can't see a judge dismissing this on ground that the difference is immaterial... not if he wants to keep his job.
posted by baylink at 7:52 AM on November 10, 2000
So the next question is, if the ballot is illegal, what can be done about it? Let Palm Beach decide the entire Presidential election complete with information on exactly how many votes are needed and endless new opportunities for voter fraud? Or do we extend it to all of Florida, with the same problems, or to the entire country, which would be a logistical nightmare? Even if the ballot was illegal, I don't see that any solution wouldn't cause even more controversy.
posted by daveadams at 8:33 AM on November 10, 2000
posted by daveadams at 8:33 AM on November 10, 2000
Actually, I looked at the same statute that you did, and I'm
not sure that the Palm Beach ballot is necessarily legal. If
you look a little bit further down in the chapter, you'll
see:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) The Department of State shall adopt rules prescribing standards for ballots used in electronic or electromechanical voting systems. Such standards shall ensure that ballots are counted in a uniform and consistent manner and shall include, without limitation, standards for the:
(a) Physical characteristics of ballots;
(b) Physical characteristics of ink for ballots;
(c) Printing of ballots; and
(d) Scoring of ballots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, section (6) of the chapter you cited is
a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.
It seems to me, based on my reading of this chapter,
(note: I am not a lawyer) that the Department of
State can place additional requirements on the
physical layout of mechanical ballots.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 9:08 AM on November 10, 2000
not sure that the Palm Beach ballot is necessarily legal. If
you look a little bit further down in the chapter, you'll
see:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) The Department of State shall adopt rules prescribing standards for ballots used in electronic or electromechanical voting systems. Such standards shall ensure that ballots are counted in a uniform and consistent manner and shall include, without limitation, standards for the:
(a) Physical characteristics of ballots;
(b) Physical characteristics of ink for ballots;
(c) Printing of ballots; and
(d) Scoring of ballots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, section (6) of the chapter you cited is
a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.
It seems to me, based on my reading of this chapter,
(note: I am not a lawyer) that the Department of
State can place additional requirements on the
physical layout of mechanical ballots.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 9:08 AM on November 10, 2000
The problem with that of course is that while the Dept of State may have been able to place additional requirements on the ballots, they failed to do so.
The process of ballot design, submission and approval exists for the very reason that, after the fact, there is no remedy for the harm it may cause.
In the two most recent cases like this in Florida, the remedy was:
- throw out the disputed ballots [result = Gore loss]
- throw out the whole County because their ballot was illegal [result = Gore loss]
- require voters to pay sufficent attention to the ballot as to not make a mistake [result = Gore loss]
There will _not_ be a re-vote. No chance. None. Nada. No judge will _apportion_ the disputed votes to Gore/Bush based on the rest of the county vote. That would be in direct violation of the law - even if it is the so-called fair thing to do [fair of course being what the Democrats want to substitute for law].
posted by schlyer at 1:54 PM on November 10, 2000
The process of ballot design, submission and approval exists for the very reason that, after the fact, there is no remedy for the harm it may cause.
In the two most recent cases like this in Florida, the remedy was:
- throw out the disputed ballots [result = Gore loss]
- throw out the whole County because their ballot was illegal [result = Gore loss]
- require voters to pay sufficent attention to the ballot as to not make a mistake [result = Gore loss]
There will _not_ be a re-vote. No chance. None. Nada. No judge will _apportion_ the disputed votes to Gore/Bush based on the rest of the county vote. That would be in direct violation of the law - even if it is the so-called fair thing to do [fair of course being what the Democrats want to substitute for law].
posted by schlyer at 1:54 PM on November 10, 2000
[schuyler]:
The problem with that of course is that while the Dept of State may have been able to place additional requirements on the ballots, they failed to do so.
The process of ballot design, submission and approval exists for the very reason that, after the fact, there is no remedy for the harm it may cause.
In the two most recent cases like this in Florida, the remedy was:
- throw out the disputed ballots [result = Gore loss]
- throw out the whole County because their ballot was illegal [result = Gore loss]
- require voters to pay sufficent attention to the ballot as to not make a mistake [result = Gore loss]
There will _not_ be a re-vote. No chance. None. Nada. No judge will _apportion_ the disputed votes to Gore/Bush based on the rest of the county vote. That would be in direct violation of the law - even if it is the so-called fair thing to do [fair of course being what the Democrats want to substitute for law].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, read (8) again. My point was not that the Department
of State has the right to adopt these rules retroactively.
My point was that the people who quoted sentence (6)
of 101.5609 Ballot requirements to mean that the Palm
Beach ballot was therefore presumptively legal weren't
necessarily right. (8) seems to suggest that there may
already exist guidelines set up by the Department of
State which are more stringent than those in (6).
I have no idea if there will be a re-vote, and I didn't
suggest a reapportionment of existing votes to
replace disputed votes. But, again, I want to be
presented with specific case law both on the legal
format of the ballot and on past remedies. If you
have specific information about the two cases that
you mention, I'd like to see them.
As for "fair" vs. "the law", you are aware that before
the election, Bush aides called for lobbying the electoral college if Gore won the electoral vote but lost the
popular vote, right? Would that action have been
"fair", or "the law", or both, or neither?
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 3:43 PM on November 10, 2000
The problem with that of course is that while the Dept of State may have been able to place additional requirements on the ballots, they failed to do so.
The process of ballot design, submission and approval exists for the very reason that, after the fact, there is no remedy for the harm it may cause.
In the two most recent cases like this in Florida, the remedy was:
- throw out the disputed ballots [result = Gore loss]
- throw out the whole County because their ballot was illegal [result = Gore loss]
- require voters to pay sufficent attention to the ballot as to not make a mistake [result = Gore loss]
There will _not_ be a re-vote. No chance. None. Nada. No judge will _apportion_ the disputed votes to Gore/Bush based on the rest of the county vote. That would be in direct violation of the law - even if it is the so-called fair thing to do [fair of course being what the Democrats want to substitute for law].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, read (8) again. My point was not that the Department
of State has the right to adopt these rules retroactively.
My point was that the people who quoted sentence (6)
of 101.5609 Ballot requirements to mean that the Palm
Beach ballot was therefore presumptively legal weren't
necessarily right. (8) seems to suggest that there may
already exist guidelines set up by the Department of
State which are more stringent than those in (6).
I have no idea if there will be a re-vote, and I didn't
suggest a reapportionment of existing votes to
replace disputed votes. But, again, I want to be
presented with specific case law both on the legal
format of the ballot and on past remedies. If you
have specific information about the two cases that
you mention, I'd like to see them.
As for "fair" vs. "the law", you are aware that before
the election, Bush aides called for lobbying the electoral college if Gore won the electoral vote but lost the
popular vote, right? Would that action have been
"fair", or "the law", or both, or neither?
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 3:43 PM on November 10, 2000
the two elections where they just threw out votes because of fruad/confusion were the previous Miami mayoral race - which ended up switching the winner, and some state congressional race back in 1974, which kept the winner the same.
I realize you didn't mention anything about apportionment, I justwanted to touch on all the remedies I'd heard bandied around previously.
What Bush was allegedly planning to do is now irrelevant. We don't know if he would have actually gone thru with those 'threats' but we do know that Gore is talking about letting a judge just pass those disputed votes over into his column to give him a win.
posted by schlyer at 7:03 PM on November 10, 2000
I realize you didn't mention anything about apportionment, I justwanted to touch on all the remedies I'd heard bandied around previously.
What Bush was allegedly planning to do is now irrelevant. We don't know if he would have actually gone thru with those 'threats' but we do know that Gore is talking about letting a judge just pass those disputed votes over into his column to give him a win.
posted by schlyer at 7:03 PM on November 10, 2000
[schuyler]
What Bush was allegedly planning to do is now irrelevant.
We don't know if he would have actually gone thru with
those 'threats' but we do know that Gore is talking
about letting a judge just pass those disputed votes over
into his column to give him a win.
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, let's talk about what the Bush camp is actually
doing now. In the Florida recount that just happened,
largely Republican Seminole county decided to look at
each ballot that didn't register a presidential vote
when run through the machine. This added about 98
votes to Bush's lead, as Seminole is about 2:1
Republican. I have no problem with this.
Now the Democratic party argued that there should be
a handcount of ballots in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward,
and Miami-Dade (I believe these are the counties, I
could be wrong) in order to determine if these ballots
had problems with "hanging chads" or if double-marked
ballots were corrected by the voter writing his/her
choice on the ballot. But Karen Hughes, the spokeswoman
for Bush's campaign, and James Baker, G.H.W.B.'s Sec'y
of State, argued that this recount, in which only
Seminole county's questionable ballots were hand-
examined, should put an end to the election, and Dubya
should be declared the winner.
So, once again, is this "fair", "the law", both, or
neither?
Oh, and when did Gore say that he wants a judge to
pass all of the Palm Beach disputed votes over into
his column?
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 11:15 PM on November 10, 2000
What Bush was allegedly planning to do is now irrelevant.
We don't know if he would have actually gone thru with
those 'threats' but we do know that Gore is talking
about letting a judge just pass those disputed votes over
into his column to give him a win.
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, let's talk about what the Bush camp is actually
doing now. In the Florida recount that just happened,
largely Republican Seminole county decided to look at
each ballot that didn't register a presidential vote
when run through the machine. This added about 98
votes to Bush's lead, as Seminole is about 2:1
Republican. I have no problem with this.
Now the Democratic party argued that there should be
a handcount of ballots in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward,
and Miami-Dade (I believe these are the counties, I
could be wrong) in order to determine if these ballots
had problems with "hanging chads" or if double-marked
ballots were corrected by the voter writing his/her
choice on the ballot. But Karen Hughes, the spokeswoman
for Bush's campaign, and James Baker, G.H.W.B.'s Sec'y
of State, argued that this recount, in which only
Seminole county's questionable ballots were hand-
examined, should put an end to the election, and Dubya
should be declared the winner.
So, once again, is this "fair", "the law", both, or
neither?
Oh, and when did Gore say that he wants a judge to
pass all of the Palm Beach disputed votes over into
his column?
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 11:15 PM on November 10, 2000
They haven't called for it specifically, but they are making the argument everytime they go on TV that those Buchanen votes and the 19,000 thrown out votes are THEIR votes. What other course of action does that suggest. Especially since it appears to be the only way they will win.
I guess they haven't called for it either. I give. Getting way to excited over all of this. Must control brain. Thinking too far ahead. ;)
posted by schlyer at 11:46 PM on November 10, 2000
I guess they haven't called for it either. I give. Getting way to excited over all of this. Must control brain. Thinking too far ahead. ;)
posted by schlyer at 11:46 PM on November 10, 2000
[schlyer]
They haven't called for it specifically, but they are
making the argument everytime they go on TV that
those Buchanen votes and the 19,000 thrown out votes
are THEIR votes. What other course of action
does that suggest. Especially since it appears to
be the only way they will win.
--------------------------------------------------------
First of all, sorry for misspelling your metafilter
handle. It was inadvertant, but still careless on
my part.
What other course of action does it suggest? Well,
here's an obvious one. Winning the election and
taking the presidency is one goal of both parties.
However, another goal is for the opposition party to
question the legitimacy and mandate of the party in
the White House.
And face it: the Democratic party is absolutely
correct to argue that Dubya's razor-thin lead in
Florida is solely a result of voter confusion. Gore
won the popular vote (and I'm willing to bet that
he still will even after the absentee ballots come
in, but one thing this election has taught me is
that nothing is for certain) and he would have won
the Electoral College as well, were it not for a
ballot that seems to be illegal -- placement of names
on ballot, X's to the right (although this is
certainly open to debate). The Democratic party
has every right to argue that Bush's win is tainted,
and that thousands of double-punched and Buchanan
ballots were really meant to be votes for Gore. This
is why a Bush spokesman absurdly argued that Palm
Beach is actually a Buchanan stronghold, instead of
saying that even though the votes were meant for
Gore, a rule is a rule. The Republican party does
not want to admit that dumb luck got Dubya into the
White House.
Look, there's plenty of mendacity in both parties,
and the love of expedience over principle can be
found on both sides of the aisle. Both parties
are often willing to set aside the law for what
they argue is right or fair.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 2:42 AM on November 11, 2000
They haven't called for it specifically, but they are
making the argument everytime they go on TV that
those Buchanen votes and the 19,000 thrown out votes
are THEIR votes. What other course of action
does that suggest. Especially since it appears to
be the only way they will win.
--------------------------------------------------------
First of all, sorry for misspelling your metafilter
handle. It was inadvertant, but still careless on
my part.
What other course of action does it suggest? Well,
here's an obvious one. Winning the election and
taking the presidency is one goal of both parties.
However, another goal is for the opposition party to
question the legitimacy and mandate of the party in
the White House.
And face it: the Democratic party is absolutely
correct to argue that Dubya's razor-thin lead in
Florida is solely a result of voter confusion. Gore
won the popular vote (and I'm willing to bet that
he still will even after the absentee ballots come
in, but one thing this election has taught me is
that nothing is for certain) and he would have won
the Electoral College as well, were it not for a
ballot that seems to be illegal -- placement of names
on ballot, X's to the right (although this is
certainly open to debate). The Democratic party
has every right to argue that Bush's win is tainted,
and that thousands of double-punched and Buchanan
ballots were really meant to be votes for Gore. This
is why a Bush spokesman absurdly argued that Palm
Beach is actually a Buchanan stronghold, instead of
saying that even though the votes were meant for
Gore, a rule is a rule. The Republican party does
not want to admit that dumb luck got Dubya into the
White House.
Look, there's plenty of mendacity in both parties,
and the love of expedience over principle can be
found on both sides of the aisle. Both parties
are often willing to set aside the law for what
they argue is right or fair.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 2:42 AM on November 11, 2000
« Older Planning on moving to Canada? | Oops, Florida sent it again. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
which the statute calls an "elector", marks a ballot,
NOT how the ballot itself must be constituted.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 4:34 PM on November 9, 2000