AFTER DEC 7TH ANY RECOUNT IN OHIO IS NOT LEGITIMATE.

[libmeayer]

Any recount in Ohio or anywhere else that is not finished before December 7th 2004 is not legitimate and has an absolute zero effect on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

In the 2000 election, and during the Florida recount, the US Supreme Court decided that a recount must be finished 6 days before the electors cast their votes in order to be legitimate. That is why the recount was stopped in Florida on Dec 12 2000; 6 days before the electors cast their votes on Dec 18 2000.

This year December 13th is the date for the electors to cast their votes and nothing and no one can change this "Constitutional Date" which always corresponds to the Monday after the second Wednesday of December. Therefore any recount to be legitimate must be finished before December 7th 2004.

The Ohio Supreme Court is very well aware of the US Supreme Court decision in 2000 regarding the Florida recount and they are not going to challenge this ruling.

There will be no recount in Ohio that has any legal or constitutional standing. Any recount will be just "academic" with zero effect on the outcome of the election.

The full US Supreme Court ruling regarding the Florida recount in the 2000 Presidential election can be found

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

From the ruling:

“The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12 . That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed."

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Wasn't there an article that said the actual dropdead date was Jan 6th

which is the date the electoral college actually votes for the President... Nothing is REALLY final until then.

[jamboi]

67. Yes, the actual drop dead date is Jan 6th and the above article is wrong.

[jamboi]

69. This posting looks like deliberate disinformation to me. Smells fishy! n/t

[SnoopDog]

71. I agree with you jamboi..

Especially when someone quotes the Constitution very incorrectly.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[coreystone]

90. DITTO!!!! N/T

[libmeayer]

92. No disinformation at all.

You are just a delusional person who refuse to admit facts and see reality.

[alittlelark]

119. you are a confused and frustrated person

who will most likely be very sad if the recount goes as many here think it will.

WATERGATE.... 'nuf said.

[truehawk]

112. Ohio ALWAYS misses SAFE Harbor. Dec 7 NOT the deadline.

Federal law contemplates that the November balloting in any state may well provoke a dispute as to the electors actually chosen. States have what has come to be called a “safe harbor” option for making sure that such disputes do not raise uncertainties as to the state’s ballots when the electoral votes are counted on January 6. The “safe harbor” applies under the following conditions:

The state must “have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures”; and
“Such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors.”
3 U.S.C. § 5. Under these conditions the “final determination . . . shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.” Id. In other words, states can be assured that their own processes of election dispute resolution will produce incontestable results in the electoral college if those processes of dispute resolution reach a determination no later than 35 days after the presidential popular vote.

Ohio law does not expressly provide for any special “process for the final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors” for Ohio. It does, however, have the process described above for reaching final determinations of election controversies and contests, in general. This process was enacted prior to Election Day, 2004. So, Ohio has presumably met the first of the federal safe harbor conditions.

The second condition, however, appears impossible to meet. Presidential electors are due to cast ballots on Monday, December 13, 2004. The “safe harbor” would apply only if a “final determination” of Ohio’s election controversy were to occur by six days earlier, or Tuesday, December 7, 2004. Given that Secretary of State Blackwell has announced his attention to certify the winners of the Presidential election on December 6, 2004, it is plain that, if he maintains that schedule, Ohio’s process for reaching a “final determination” of the electoral contest cannot yield an answer by December 7.

It would be surprising, moreover, if Ohio ever achieved the “safe harbor” in any truly close race. Because (a) Boards of Elections can canvass the presidential popular vote no earlier
than 11 says after that vote, and (b) the “safe harbor” expires unless an election dispute reaches its final determination within 35 days, there are only 24 days under Ohio law for a slate of electors to be certified and for all recounts and contests to be initiated and resolved. This is not much time to deal effectively with any election in which well over 5 million voters are likely to cast ballots.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/analysis/041130a.htm

[AtLiberty]

2. However,

fraud has a longer shelf life.

[libmeayer]

13. Proving fraud in a legal sense is much

more difficult from any post that talks about fraud you have seen on DU so far.

[jamboi]

70. No problem. When its as blatant as it has been in this case its easy! n/t

[libmeayer]

93. All these supposed vote Fraud stories that were posted

on DU cannot stand in the court of law.

[tsuki]

96. They could if wrapped in a falaphel of conspiracy. Conspiracy is

easier to prove. Rules were deliberately blurred for conspiracy.

[libmeayer]

97. LOL

[ibegurpard]

3. Not this this means anything

But the Supreme Court specified that ruling was not to be used as precedent.

[KansDem]

6. However, that was "Gore v Bush"

Was the above ruling part of that case? Or is it found in some of the legal wrangling that was going on prior to Gore v Bush?

[delphine]

65. Sorry, but that was BUSH V. GORE

Bush initiated the lawsuit. Don't forget that. Don't help the repukes revise history.

[bemis12]

10. The Supremes ruling wasn't..

..... to be used as precedent.

But those dates are hard-coded into the Federal law. I think the OP is probably right. Still, it's important to get the votes counted to see what we may or may not find.

[Wordie]

58. Federal law doesn't require a state to take advantage of the safe harbor

provision, does it? It just provides the opportunity. OH law may be very different from FL law.

[libmeayer]

11. They do this in most of their ruling.

However the main issue in their argument is that a recount to be legitimate must be finished 6 days prior to electors casting their votes. What is different in the Ohio case.

[jamboi]

73. Your info is *highly* debatable and does not match the legal analysis of

the lawyers who are litigating this right now. I think they are right and your postings are wrong.

[libmeayer]

21. Please see my post # 11.

[jamboi]

74. Post #11 was incorrect. n/t

[trumad]

4. Man libmeayer

every single one of your posts has been a shoot down of anything fraud... Why's that?

[libmeayer]

8. I am addressing the validity of the recount not the Fraud.

[Sideways]

23. Yeah Right What A Good Foot Soldier You Are

EOM

[libmeayer]

32. A recount is not to prove a fraud.

[Sideways]

40. You Need To Read A Book Or Two Your Grammar Stinks

[libmeayer]

43. Thank you for your advice.

[jamboi]

75. Who exactly are you libmeayer, and what is the axe that you're grinding?nt

[pbartch]

19. maybe they ain't a Democrat????

[rockedthevoteinMA]

5. But isn't that just for FL?

Doesn't each state have their own laws about that?

I remember one of the first KO shows covering this, they had a guy on who was a constitutional law expert who said that yes, things are supposed to be taken care of by dec. 13, BUT they really have until Jan. 6.

KO posted it on his blog too. I'll see if I can find it.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Articles that mention Jan 6, 2005 as the deadline

http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5292&printsafe=1
Statewide Ohio Recount Expected
(They mention Olbermann in this article)

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2004/09/election_nightm_2.html
Election Nightmare Scenarios for 2004

[rockedthevoteinMA]

31. Thank you BrklynLiberal! n/t

[intheflow]

34. Here's Olbermann's blog entry, too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6533008/#041121a

From Nov. 21, if the link doesn't work.

[Patsy Stone]

7. Until Jan 6 anything can happen.

If the recount proves that Kerry won, then the electors can change. There is also the provision that enables one rep and one sen to petition to exclude Ohio's votes (opening scene in F9/11), on Jan 6, when the results are opened in a joint session of congress. If it turns out that Kerry won, and anyone reports it, it would be awfully hard to inaugurate * on 1/20 and have anyone believe he was legitimate. Not that we do anyway, but I'm saying, everyone else.

BTW, the purpose of this, while it would be wonderful to see Kerry in the WH, is to make sure that the votes are correct and haven't been hacked.

[Twist_U_Up]

9. will we get 1 Senator to sign ?

I say with Fraud there will be plenty

[BrklynLiberal]

14. The reason none signed for Gore is that he requested that none sign..n/t

[pat_k]

33. Ask them to sign this today

Declaration of Intent
-----------------

As a Member of Congress it is my sworn duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Being mindful of that oath, I believe that the single moral tenet on which that document, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

Consequently, the right of the People to have confidence that they are being afforded free and fair elections for their government officials is a right that no other consideration can supersede. A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

I choose to make this declaration at this time because it has now become clear to me that several states have, to this point in time, failed to fully provide for what would generally be regarded as a free and fair election for their citizens. And consequently, they have generated an insufficient level of confidence in their official result.

There can be no arbitrary point in time -- whether it be a date scheduled for appointing electors, electoral voting, or electoral vote counting -- that can limit the right of the People to have their consent justly measured and expressed. An election is a survey not a contest.

With these principles in mind I would urge the duly authorized election officials in each and every state to make every effort -- whether it be ballot recounting, independent auditing, reopening voting, or even judicially-sanctioned statistical adjustment of results -- to assure that their election truly reflects the will of the citizens of their state.

I wish to recognize that efforts are ongoing in some states -- by candidates, election officials, the news media, and citizens groups, through recounts and other means -- to clarify and adjust the official results in order to increase the level of public confidence. These efforts are necessary, however, they cannot be sufficient.

This is true because by far the most disturbing circumstances that have occurred in this election are the confirmed cases of disparate treatment being afforded to certain classes of voters. If systemic barriers to exercising the franchise existed that correlate to a citizen's age, race, religion, gender, socio-economic status, military status, partisan status, absentee status, immigration status, or other identifiable characteristic, the election was neither free and fair, nor lawful in the absence of any corrective remedy being applied.

Therefore, in keeping with my oath of office, I publicly declare my intention to act on January 6th 2005 and object to any presidential electors that I believe to have been unlawfully appointed. To do less would make me complicit with a violation of our shared democratic principles.




___________________________
Member of Congress

[Twist_U_Up]

42. perhaps a new post for this n/t

[whalerider55]

twist

my betting, sadly, is that we will get none.

what should have happened already, imho, is that 45 democratic sentaors should already have held a press conference announcing their intention to co-sponsor the petition, which already has (last time i looked last week) 14 co-sponsonsors in the house.

this is where the drop-dead point comes for a lot of people and the democratic party, i think.

whalerider55

[bones_7672]

36. I suspect if a Dem Senator does that the Repubs will retaliate. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

27. Check out THIS description of what could happen at the Electoral College

voting. I am sorry that this is more than the allowed four paragraphs..but it is fascinating!!!

Outcome: According to the U.S. Constitution if the electoral vote for President ends up in a tie (or no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote – 270 out of 538) the election is to be settled by the Congress on January 6, 2005. That’s right, it could take 65 days to determine the winner of a Presidential election that ends in an Electoral Vote tie. However, there are several steps that have to happen before the decision gets to the Congress.

First, the members of the Electoral College have to meet and physically cast their votes. The members of the Electoral College will meet in their respective state capitals on December 13, 2004 (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December). That will give the two campaigns 41 days after Election Day on November 2nd to try to convince one of the 538 individuals who are electors to switch sides. Also it will give the campaigns 41 days to challenge the credentials of each elector – a little-known Constitutional provision states that no member of the Electoral College can be a member of Congress or an employee of the Federal Government. Any state party who forgets about this provision could see their elector disqualified and replaced.

There can also be some chicanery by the electors themselves to manipulate the subsequent voting by the House of Representatives for President. The Constitution states that if no person receives a majority, the House of Representatives can choose from among the top three candidates receiving electoral votes. For example a single Democratic elector could vote for a Republican other than George Bush (say John McCain for example) in hopes of splitting the Republican vote in the House. Or there could be a campaign to nominate a compromise candidate such as Colin Powell and an elector or two could vote for Powell in order to give the House the option of selecting him as President in place of either Bush or Kerry.

Once the electors have cast their votes, they will be counted at a joint session of Congress on Thursday, January 6, 2005. The members of Congress have the opportunity to challenge the validity of any electoral votes. If at least one member of the House and at least one Senator object to an electoral vote, the two Houses shall then separately meet and decide about the objection. In 2001, members of the Congressional Black Caucus from the House tried to challenge the electoral votes from many of the states voting for George Bush especially those from Florida. However, they could not find a single Democratic Senator to join them. After the extreme partisanship of the last four years it would probably be a lot easier to find a Senator to join in objecting to any controversial electoral votes.

Once these challenges are dealt with and the votes have been counted, if no one receives a majority of the electoral votes the House will then begin voting for President and the Senate will begin voting for Vice President. Note that this vote will take place on January 6th three days after the new Congress has been sworn in on January 3rd.

The Senate vote is a straightforward vote – each Senator gets one vote and must choose between the top two finishers in the Electoral College. Whoever receives 51 votes would be elected Vice President. There is a question of what would happen if the Senate vote were a 50-50 tie. Normally the Vice President casts the deciding vote whenever there is a tie in the Senate. However, it would seem to be debatable whether Vice President Dick Cheney would be allowed to cast the deciding vote to make himself Vice President for another term. This outcome would probably end up being litigated in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another note – John Edwards would not have a chance to vote for himself for Vice President since his Senate term ends on January 3rd. However, John Kerry would still be a Senator and he could cast the deciding vote to make Edwards Vice President. We could possibly see the paradoxical situation where John Kerry casts the deciding vote to make Edwards Vice President while the House votes to re-elect George Bush President resulting in the ultimate form of divided government.

The House vote for President is a lot more complicated. It is not a simple one-representative/one-vote situation. Instead, each state delegation receives one vote and the winner needs to receive the most votes from 26 state delegations. If a state delegation is tied that state casts no vote. The Republicans currently have a majority of the representatives in 30 states. However, a strategically placed switch of a handful of seats in November’s election could keep the Republicans from controlling the 26 states delegations necessary to re-elect George Bush in the event of an Electoral Vote tie. And if neither candidate can get 26 votes the House will keep voting and voting until someone does.

If the House cannot select someone by January 20th then the Vice President selected by the Senate will become acting President until the House can make a selection. Thus, if the Democrats in the Senate have succeeded in selecting John Edwards as Vice President it would be in their interest to continue a deadlock in the House for as long as possible so that Edwards could become acting President. Thus, we could possibly reach a situation where 79 days after Election Day we would still not have elected a President. Now that would keep the cable news networks busy.

[libmeayer]

38. Interesting.

[m.standridge]

45. And isn't this really ridiculous--

as if the Electoral College is really a working way to do this anymore.
I understand it's designed to "keep the big cities from running everything like they did in ancient Greece" but Jeez.
I mean, we ARE in a war situation of some kind--or could be, if we aren't.
The most ridiculous thing, is, it was just a coincidence that this thing isn't tied up already in the Electoral College. I mean, if Kerry had carried Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada, all three of which were very close, it would already be tied, 269-269.
What a headache!
Admittedly, this recount in Ohio, assuming it can be completed early enough to count for something und BUSH V. GORE, is more potentially conclusive in nature, since it could put a man who trails at this point in the overall national Popular vote by some 3.3 million votes, into the White House.
That would look like Bush over Gore last time, in spades.
And look who would be the aggrieved party--the richest, most powerful group in America--the Republican Party!
Do you think they'd stand for that for one minute?
I mean, they went after Clinton for so much stuff that even Starr now says was BS in nature.
What would they do do these guys?
It's almost nightmare scenario for Kerry to WIN in Ohio with this recount. I just--we don't seem to have any really comfortable outcomes here. The GOP keeps control of all three branches for a total of at least six years--unprecedented.
And we have the first Electoral-only President to ever be re-elected, on top of that.
And we have vague new powers for the feds: line item veto, drug war police powers (to break into federally-funded housing w/o warrants), extended power to incarcerate w/o charge per the Patriot Act, vague powers under 'Homeland Security Dept." that seem to include surveillance powers, strongly suggested computer irregularities that will go un-investigated and may undermine any chance to ever have legit elections again, extended War Powers Act troop deployment times,
and an attempt to destroy Social Security.
And growing corporate power of the mass media from several different directions.
Altenative: Kerry as a kind of Christ-like, victimized, hated President, reviled from the second he takes office by the media and pursued on the most trivial of charges by an obsessed GOP Congress.
Get real. What a mess. Either way.

[BrklynLiberal]

51. Kerry as victimized president....

"Kerry as a kind of Christ-like, victimized, hated President, reviled from the second he takes office by the media and pursued on the most trivial of charges by an obsessed GOP Congress."

I don't think that Kerry could be more hated or reviled than Bush...and the rest of the world would certainly have more respect for Kerry that they do for Bush.
Kerry could not be any more persecuted than Clinton was when he was President, and he left office with an unprecedented positive rating by the public and the rest of the world.
I would like to see the 2006 elections go on with Kerry in office rather than Bush. I would rather have the next Supreme Court Justices selected by Kerry rather than Bush. In fact, there is nothing that I would rather see Bush do except (walk) be dragged out of the White House.

[jamboi]

80. If the electoral college votes for Kerry then he's pres, no ifs ands or

buts. Unless the Republicans tried to pull a bald face coup, our military is sworn, each and everyone of them to uphold the constitution, not any particular leader. That's what makes us different from the Roman empire or a bannana republic. You don't have to like the consitituion, you just have to follow it.

[ahyums]

113. I think if Kerry were to win a recount, much would depend on how much he

won it by. If it were by a big margin it should be clear as day to anyone that the entire election nationwide was flawed and that Bush's PV margin would be extremely suspect. A small win would also allow for the argument that there was nationwide chicanery but it would be less obviously demonstrable.

[althecat]

47. fascinating...

Clearly the forefathers had a few clues...

[delphine]

68. If this happened - the vote in the Senate would be 55-45

and the majority of the House would go repuke. So there'd be absolutely NO chance of Kerry winning.

Of course, some pussy-ass dems would also vote to keep shrub, "for the good of the country "

[Patsy Stone]

81. Right

but then, again, it would be known far and wide that * is still not a legitimately elected president. That his brothers in arms, alone, put him there. Joy.

[libertypirate]

15. This is criminal, not just a bad count

Quit acting like this was a normal election and we have to abide by the standard proccess. That's just silly spin...

[Merlot]

16. Remember the Mantra:

It's not about putting Kerry in office, it's about making sure every vote is counted!

It really dosen't matter how long it takes. If fraud is proven, a whole new set of circumstances will prevail.

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. That ruling was explicitly NOT allowed to be used as precedent

http://cronus.com/scotus for more details on it.

{SCOTUS} held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."



http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[bullimiami]

18. they explicitly made bush v gore only apply to that case

and no others. it is not precedent. i think we need to count. if ohio is found to belong to kerry and they still send bush electors there will be some very unhappy people, more than 50 million of them. better to know this isnt a democracy than to keep pretending.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. since Bush v. Gore set no precedent...

...we cant really site it as a precedent for anything, except maybe the SCOTUS's hesitancy to get involved in another disputed presidential election. I think this one will get no higher than the 6th US Circuit Court. Anyone know which way that one tends to swing? I am betting that Karl Rove has the Ohio State Supreme Court in his pocket.

[On the Road]

22. Actually, I Think Bush v Gore Ruled Differently

They claimed that any recounts had to be completed by the safe harbor date of December 12. It's completely indefensible. Even Judge Posner, one of the only flaks who could be persuaded to defend the decision, labeled it "the weakest part of the decision," meaning that he couldn't even put a fig leaf on it.

Historically, slates of electors have changed after that date. In the 1960 election, Hawaii changed from red to blue January 4, and no one made a peep.

I would be shocked if the US Supreme Court overturned a decision made the state level to change electors after the Dec 12 date. But nothing surprises me any more.

[Wordie]

55. The Supremes justified the date on basis of intent of the FL legislature,

and their express desire to take advantage of the safe harbor. (I'm pretty sure.) I don't really know if the OH legislature has expressed the same intent. Therefore, the 2000 decision may not apply in this case. See my earlier post (the one with the subject, "Our hope may lie...").

[mdb]

24. Congress can challenge.

Certification of electors begins on December 7th. On the 13th the electors actually vote.

Congress opens those votes on January 6. If Kerry is actually shown to win after the 13th, then members of Congress can challenge. This requires a written objection from one House member and one senator. Once an objection is raised, they vote by majority vote as to whether to accept the slate of electoral votes from that state.

If this did happen you have to keep in mind what congressman or senator would then actually vote to seat the candidate who lost the popular vote in Ohio?

[libmeayer]

41. Of course the congress can challenge

any certification. However you need to remember that you have a repukes congress.

[mdb]

59. Of course,

but if in actuality the recount comes out to obviously show Kerry won Ohio you would have to ask yourself, what congressman in his or her right mind would vote to seat the candidate who lost the popular vote in Ohio?

[libmeayer]

85. Tell me how can Kerry win in a recount.

How can he overcome 118,775 vote Bush lead.
It is "Mathematically Impossible".

[bemis12]

87. He could win

if fraud is found. That's the only way. Obviously, the over/under votes can't do it.

[libmeayer]

100. Exactly.

A recount of ballots in Ohio cannot prove vote fraud. These ballots were counted twice already, the first time on Election night and the second time during the certification of results in each county.
The fraud proof requires many very strong evidences in order to be considered in a court let alone to prevail. All the fraud stories that have been posted on DU so far have zero chance to stand in a court of law.

[read the law first]

107. That's not exactly correct

There ARE instances that meet the standard of proof; but so far none of them equal 119,000 + 1 vote and especially if we have to cover the undervote in a contest, then we need 212,000 + 1 instances of fraud. And then all we would get is a new nationwide election, they wouldn't just reverse the results. So, in fact, you're actually backwards. The ONLY hope that we have in Ohio is in the recount unless some new information comes to light. HOWEVER, there have been numerous actual problems that are provable and documented just none yet that equal either 119,000 or 212,000

[ahyums]

115. I'm pretty sure they were not in fact counted a second time during

certification as you put it. So add one more wrong thing to the list.

[ahyums]

114. oh I can imagine plenty of Republican Congressmen doing just that

their hypocritical justification being that Kerry lost the nationwide popular vote, because you know, it matters so much more when it's by 3.5 million instead of only half a million. Those extra 3 million make all the moral difference.

[jamboi]

76. Not all of congress is Republican as I recall. To reject electoral what

is the requirement? Research anyone?

[libmeayer]

86. You only need a simple majority by the Congress

to choose a President. This simple majority is Republican.
Any it is "Mathematically Impossible" for Kerry to overcome 118,775 vote by Bush even if they count the votes one million times.

[SnoopDog]

25. I think the US Constitution states...

‘…and no one can change this "Constitutional Date" which always corresponds to the Monday after the second Wednesday of December. ‘

I looked at the US Constitution and there is nothing stating the above stipulation.

US Constitution
Article II.
Section 1.

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”


Either I missed something or I think that this date is what Congress set up.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. When it will be legit

Any recount done will be ligitimate when a million people hit the streets.

[bones_7672]

37. The only way I see a million people hit the streets

is on the Saturday before Christmas, heading to the malls.

[Wordie]

28. I can't quote the decision, but they said it wasn't precedent-setting, SO

let's take them at their word. :)

[libmeayer]

39. Please see my post # 11.

[Wordie]

60. I did. Please see my post #55.

[jamboi]

77. Post #11 was incorrect. n/t

[suston96]

29. Constitutional date?

"This year December 13th is the date for the electors to cast their votes and nothing and no one can change this "Constitutional Date" which always corresponds to the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December. Therefore any recount to be legitimate must be finished before December 7th 2004."

It says that in the Constitution? Where?

In other words, where is that "constitutional date" thing about Mondays and Wednesdays?

[bemis12]

46. It's not the Constitution

But it is federal law.

Date electors meet is set on December 13.
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000007----000-.html

And I read this to say that if the electors are chosen by December 7, they can't be challenged:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000005----000-.html

The state, of course, has the option to reject that safe harbor date.

[Wordie]

62. What does OH law say about the safe harbor??? That's the question.

AND, does the strangeness about setting dates for recounts, even AFTER the fiasco in FL in 2000, indicate a DIFFERENT intent on the part of the legislature? Could it be argued that they demonstrated that the safe harbor was NOT IMPORTANT, if they set up their recount laws so that the recount could only possibly occur AFTER the safe harbor had past. By taking so long for the initial count, they perhaps could be said to have intended this as well, couldn't they? After all, if they really didn't want for a recount to even be POSSIBLE, they could have rescinded the law allowing a recount.

OR, does someone need to make sure that the recount is complete before the Dec. 12 date, even if it requires 1000s of people working around the clock?

[bemis12]

79. It's the 7th

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/04-7724.pdf

That's why Cobb and Badnarik sued. You need only read the first page.

[Wordie]

89. Could you please post the relevant sections, instead of a download? n/t

[bemis12]

91. Try this

http://tinyurl.com/4l9cx

I still couldn't copy and paste it, but Google offered to show it as HTML.

[Wordie]

94. Did you download the .pdf file? Because you can toggle to the text tool,

and then select and copy and paste text that way. If you have Acrobat running, try it: the text tool should be on the toolbar, represented by a "T". When you toggle it, the little hand icon changes to a text selection icon. Try that and post what you are referring to.

It just frustrates everyone when people post, but as the reader, you don't have any idea what the post is really about, because there is no text, only a link.

[bemis12]

98. Thanks! And here....

On November 22, 2004, several plaintiffs, including the candidates for the Presidency of the United States of the Green Party, David Cobb, and Libertarian Party, Michael Badnarik (“candidate plaintiffs”), filed a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs ask for an order requiring the defendant, Kenneth Blackwell, the Secretary of State of Ohio, to take appropriate measures
to ensure that a recount of the ballots cast on November 2, 2004, commences and proceeds in such a manner as to be completed by December 7, 2004, the date Ohio’s electors will be certified for the Electoral College.

Title 3 U.S.C. § 5 creates a “safe harbor” for states that make a final determination as to their election results at least six days before the December 13, 2004, meeting of the Electoral College: “If the state legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to election day, that determination shall be conclusive if made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors.” Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 77–78 (2000).

[Wordie]

101. That is what is so confusing. OH law, seemingly, allows controversies to

extend BEYOND the federal safe harbor date (see my post #55). You are quoting Federal law. So, as I read that, it would appear that in OH, the law does not concern itself with the safe harbor date. After all, if OH law allows controversies to be PRESENTED way after the safe harbor deadline (a petitioner can submit a contest for up to 15 days after the certification, which puts it 9 days after the safe harbor date), then it HAS NOT provided "for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to election day." The OH law, in fact, ALLOWs for the continuation of controversies and contests for a period that extends for a long time AFTER the safe harbor. Right?

I'm not an attorney. I only am able to read these things and interpret them logically. Unfortunately, the logical interpretation is not necessarily the same as the legal interpretation. :(

Any election law attorneys on DU?

[pat_k]

30. Complete nonsense! There is NO deadline

It is all up to Congress. There is NO actual deadline. In '60 or so, Hawaii finished a recount that changed the result (wrong electoral votes already submitted) and sent the correct slate on January 3rd. Congress counted the second slate was counted.

The Kerry slate can be submitted anytime before January 6th. It’s up to Congress which slate, if either, they count.

Heaven help them if a recount shows a Kerry win and they try to count Bush electors.

But, it would be nice if Kerry electors met and voted on the 13rd too, and conveyed their uncertified votes to the Archivist. Then when the election is overturned, the Kerry electoral votes are already in – Kerry electors meeting and voting would make a splash anyway!

If Congress decides to simply toss out Ohio entirely, then those electors are no longer part of the "whole number of electors appointed" and the person with the majority of the remaining is inaugurated on the 20th.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. See post #27 for possible scenarios. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

44. Self deleted

[Wordie]

48. Our hope may lie in the difference between FL and OH election law...

The Supreme Court in 2000 was concerned about the intent of the FL legislature to preserve the safe harbor, as made clear in some of the election law language that the FL legislature used. But is OH a DIFFERENT case? Because the way OH has structured the deadlines of their election law seems to indicate that they intended a much longer time for these issues to be resolved. If the recount provision, and the contest provision, don't even kick in until the SoS certifies, and recounts may be requested up to 5 days after the SoS certifies, and contests may be requested up to 15 days after the SoS certifies (this would be, I believe, December 21), then the intent of the OH legislature surely seems to indicate that the safe harbor date was of less concern to them than to the legislature in FL, doesn't it???? So, the provisions of the 2000 BvG decision really don't apply, do they? (Even if one were to forget that the Supreme Court said the decision was not to be considered precedent anyway.)

FL law (per the OP):
<snip>
"...requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12."

This is what the Supremes decided upon.


HOWEVER, OH law does not have the same provisions. Here is part of what it says:
<snip>
Recounts and Election Contests
An application for a recount must be filed no later than five days after the official results are declared. . . . . . .3515.02
A petition contesting an election must be filed in the appropriate court within 15 days after the official results are declared,
or within 10 days after the official results of a recount are declared . . . . . . .3515.09
(The above is from the OH SoS site, in the form of a pdf, at this address: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/pubaffairs/elections/elecalen.pdf


There is additional information here: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/dates.html
Moritz says this about relevant dates:
<snip>
December 7
(Tuesday) Deadline for resolution of any controversies under state law concerning appointment of electors to Electoral College

December 13
(Monday) Meetings and Votes of the Electoral College in each state

January 5
(Wednesday) Congress counts the Electoral College votes from the states
<unsnip>

Note that it is unclear whether Moritz, on their site, is quoting OH state law with regard to the December 13 date, or if it is quoting Federal law. I have not found yet what OH law says about it.

[bemis12]

56. It's federal law

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000007----000-.html

[Wordie]

61. But there is also this:

<snipped from same site>
§ 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

Do you know what OH law says in this respect? I wish I did. Could a case be made that by setting up the deadlines as they did that they have made a choice to ignore the safe harbor provision? Could one say that the late deadline WAS a direction by the legislature? Maybe the problem is that most of these things have so rarely been tested that we really don't KNOW what of this really means!

At the very least though, it means that the December 13 date is not absolute.

[godogsgo]

49. Even if there was a recount it probaly would not change things

the dnc said that they are not looking to overturn the results

[BrklynLiberal]

50. I think they HAVE to say that..BUT..

if it turns out that they do overturn the results...............I am sure they will accept the new outcome.

[jamboi]

78. Doesn't matter. We will have a recount and we will see what the result is

and then we'll deal with whoever is actually elected.

[WyLoochka]

88. Even if it takes

well into the next term, at least as far as I'm concerned.

If it is proven at some point, including after the frigging inauguration, that Bush was put in there by fraud, we will HAVE to go to DC, put the whole place under seige, shut it down and not leave until BushCo has been driven out.

[ahyums]

118. if you're not an infiltrator I apologize, all the same there seem to be

plenty of them on this thread. I find it really interesting that so many whose obvious intent is to discourage keep on with this mantra that nothing can change in a recount. The fact that you are spending so much time and effort in doing suggests to me that they in general believe the polar opposite.

[EndElectoral]

52. Bullshit! If Kerry wins the recount and Bush is given the presidency

again, there will be marches on Washington the likes of which have never been seen!

[BrklynLiberal]

54. There sure as HELL better be!!!

even if we have to import patriots from Ukraine!!!!!!!!

[mcg]

108. Ukrainian-Americans for Kerry

I saw a bumper sticker that said that.

[godogsgo]

53. i dont think the gop congress will accept this either

[BrklynLiberal]

57. Maybe enough "moderates" and true conservatives will take advantage of

a situation like that to get rid of this free-spending Compassionate Conservative who is bankrupting this country.

[mountainvue]

63. Bush v. Gore was a one time deal.

NEXT!

[bemis12]

64. But the law surrounding it

is codified in the US Code.


Next!

[distantearlywarning]

66. I think I care more about the evildoers going down

than about Kerry being elected anyway. It might be interesting to see what happens after they find evidence of fraud after the Shrub is sworn in. Impeachment? Maybe. But I bet he'd have a fun time in office after the American people found out what a liar and a fraud he is.

This might be for the best in the end anyway. (But Blackwell is still a lying cheat.)

[righteous1]

72. DEC 13th is the date period

The Scotus decision was NOT a precedent setting ruling

[jamboi]

82. Not even Dec 13th is the date. Under some scenarios Jan 6th is the date

[BansheeDem]

83. January 6th is the date ...

"That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed."

One of the biggest problems in 2000 was the inconsistent re-count. Each county in Florida was applying different standards; and the USSC made note of this in their ruling when they said that the FSSC had not set a standard in their ruling. Ohio, OTOH, has a very consistent re-count law in place which governs them statewide. If a re-count can be completed prior to the Electors meeting (and voting) on Jan 6th, then the results of that recount can and should be considered. As other posters have said, the USSC ruling was not be be taken as precedent for future proceedings.

[bemis12]

84. Despite the non-precedent

You're ignoring the law, specifically Title 3 U.S.C § 5 and Title 3 U.S.C. § 7.

Those set the dates of December 13 and December 7. After the 7th, the Republican slate certified today cannot be challenged. Of course, the State of Ohio can CHOOSE to send a different slate, if the recount results demand it.

edit typo

[greatscott15]

95. Why is this the case?

So these dates are because of the US constitution or the Bush vs Gore 2000 ruling by the USSC?

Could the USSC step in even after the fact if blantant fraud was found?

[bemis12]

99. It's the Federal law

Not the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling.

I wouldn't worry about the US Supreme Court. IF fraud were found and Kerry won, and Ohio chose Democratic electors, they just wouldn't have the safe harbor. i.e. they could be challenged, but would not. Congress is NOT going to reject the electors of the winner. Period.

[Samantha]

102. The absolute last drop dead day for stopping a second term for Bush*

is January 20th, Inauguration Day. If between now and then fraud is proven, what Supreme Court judge will swear him in? None. Not even one of the five who voted against Gore in 2000. Jonathan Turley carefully reviewed all of these deadlines and that is the last one.

This is a states right issue not a Federal one. The Supreme Court had no right to intervene in 2000, it only chose to do so because it was acting politically, not because there was a Federal case. Too many Constitutional authorities have written about this that we should still have to fight about it here and now; but if it decides to do so again, or if a renegade Supreme Court Judge did inaugurate Bush* despite some legitimate proof of fraud, I hate to imagine the consequences.

The Safe Harbor law people are so fond of quoting is a law passed over a hundred years ago when the Electoral College votes were delivered by pony express. Too many states delayed dispatching their votes and when the Congress met, not all of the results were in. Thus, the Safe Harbor law. One cannot reasonably say these days are those days. In 2000 the Supreme Court negated 51 million votes, and part of this reasoning for doing so was to respect the Safe Harbor date. That was ridiculous on its face, especially in light of the fact it should never have involved itself in this case to begin with. If shenanigans and posturing such as this starts to evolve this time, it will not stand.

That aside, the Safe Harbor deadline is not an absolute deadline, it only states the votes of states are guaranteed to be counted if they are received that day. After that, no guaranty. Over these many, many years, many, many states have submitted their slates after this deadline and they were in fact counted. It's not an unusual occurrence.

The State Constitution of Ohio specifically says the popular vote will determine the party of the slate of electors. If that is overturned by a recount, state law dictates the Republican slate would automatically be set aside in lieu of a Democratic slate. And there is no law Cornell can cite that will change that.

Further, should we hear any noise about the State Legislature choosing a slate, as the Florida State Legislature threatened to do in 2000, we have already learned through David Boies new book that is unconstitutional. No state can change the venue by which it chooses its slate of electors following the day of the election. Before election day, yes. After election day, no.

If Ohio law dictates the terms by which a recount can be achieved and we follow that law, that is prevailing. What does not prevail is the Republican noise to the contrary. No Federal law supersedes the Constitution on this subject. And the Constitution defines the selection of the slate of elector as a state-determined procedure.

[libmeayer]

105. You are wrong.

[corbett]

103. Half-Right And Muddied Waters

OK, a lot of fertilizer has been flung in this thread and its replies. The above post is partially correct but it ONLY applies to the Ohio certification and selections of its electors for the Electoral College.

While it is true that safe harbor is open to interpretation in terms of what Ohio's Secretary of State should do, what is NOT open to interpretation is the fact that Blackwell CANNOT choose his electors if fraud or gross error in the count is proved. At this point, all Arnebeck has to do is have the Ohio Supreme Court (not even all the justices have to vote) enjoin Blackwell from submitting his electors until the matter is settled.

At that point, it gets tricky. Since basically everyone posting in this thread agrees that the skewed numbers and disenfranchised voters are not simply a case of gross error but of criminal negligence or conspiracy to commit fraud, the Electoral College should submit its numbers to Congress without Ohio's numbers. In that case, unless another major state or group of smaller states (NM and NV) can be changed, neither candidate will have 270 electoral votes and neither candidate will have a clear majority.

If we follow that scenario, the constitution calls for the House of Representatives to choose the President and the Senate to choose the Vice President. I don't believe that the House would choose Kerry without a fight but anything is possible.

The other way this might go is for fraud to be proved to an Ohio court's satisfaction after the Electoral College but BEFORE Congress reconvenes in early January. In that case, a challenge emerges, as was attempted in January of 2001. The constitution calls for at least one Representative, supported by at least one Senator, to present evidence of fraud of incorrect election numbers. At that stage, the Senate decides whether to abide by the Electoral College's numbers or send it to the House for consideration.

In short, Kerry's best chance is to do EXACTLY what he is doing which is to challenge Blackwell's certification right after the certification is made but before Ohio's electors are chosen. If the evidence is strong enough and the recount proves some or all of the assertions, Blackwell will have no choice but to recertify Ohio for Kerry and the matter effectively will be closed. Kerry wins.

Read

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

for the litigator's angle. After that, check

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22jthoreau.htm

[libmeayer]

104. But Kerry cannot prove this gross fraud in six days.

[IndyPriest]

109. Doesn't need to prove it

All he needs to do is demonstrate likelihood. THEN a JUDGE needs to step in and prohibit Blackwell from sending Ohio's electors until the truth about the likelihood is determined. Whether a judge will do that seems to me to be the "tipping point." And I think THAT will be determined by what Arnbeck's brief shows.

[IndyPriest]

110. Proof vs. Evidence

Seems to be a lot of difficulty getting clear on the difference between proof and evidence. Proof is what happens TO evidence when evidence is debated, sifted, sorted through a court proceeding and eventually ruled on. You don't need proof to bring an issue to a court. You need evidence. The court proceedings determine if the evidence CONSTITUTES proof. Certainly, to get a court to LISTEN to evidence requires that evidence not be completely bullshit. There is a threashold that evidence has to reach for it to be entertained. And that threashold is determined by the judge. So a lot is hanging on WHICH judge hears the evidence.

[november3rd]

106. safe harbor

this refers to the so-called "safe harbor" window, doesn't it? Just because a state's electors don't follow the legal precedent, doesn't necessarily disqualify them.

[Spiffarino]

111. OK. Troll feeding time is over, zookeepers.

Put this one on ignore. It's all obfuscations and few facts. When facts are presented, they're dodged. That's the tell.

Bye bye.

[operafred]

116. Recount? OK. But what about re-vote

Frankly, I don't see that a recount alone will do the trick. We may pick up a few thousand votes here and there but as we all know the machines have swallowed up the Kerry votes and thrown them in Bush's lap.

What about totally rejecting the results of the election because of demonstrable massive fraud and demand a re-vote (but of course without those damn machines or we'll have the same mess again).

It may be worth checking out this article:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04517.html

Here's a snippet:

There are some who will argue against a re-vote on legal grounds, saying that the US Constitution specifies the day for national elections. But I think when there is strong evidence of massive vote fraud, an arbitrary date becomes less important. You can be certain that if Ohio was won by a third party candidate under circumstances suggesting obvious fraud that both Democrats and Republicans would be crying out for a re-vote.

[saracat]

117. Yoo, Hoo! Tombstoned! Hooray. Caught ya!

[Moderator]

120. I'm locking this thread

reason :

the original poster has been banned ,
no need to keep threads open started by them .