Extra! Extra! Blackwell anticipates a fight over Ohio's electoral votes!

[tinfoil_beret]

A slip of the tongue reveals that Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell anticipates a fight over Ohio's 20 electoral votes.

In Keith Olbermann's blog at http://www.bloggermann.com/ he quotes Blackwell as saying "Because Senator Kerry has conceded and has not asked for a recount he has no standing, and so I would anticipate that the Electoral College will be held on the 13th of December and 20 votes will go to the certified winner.”

To this observer, Mr. Blackwell's comment admits a legitimate challenge to the state's selection of electors. With Glibs Cobb and Company filing suit to legally block Nevada's 5 electoral votes, the stage is set for the same in Ohio, and Blackwell's comment acknowledges as much.

One might wonder if Cobb and Company had a strategic reason for challenging the votes in Nevada before doing the same in another state. Would the situation in Nevada make it easier to win there and thus set a precedent for challenging eligibility for electors in other states? Does the fact that Nevada promised voters that they would have machines with verifiable papertrails but failed to deliver on November 2 come into play here?

As the momentum builds, I can't help but wonder how long they have planned this coup and how they came up with the idea. Did the idea already have momentum before bleever mentioned this strategy to Kerry's lawyer? Or did DU tinfoil-hatters start the ball rolling?

This situation could get very interesting. To paraphrase another poster here, I think it's time for President-elect John Kerry to start choosing his cabinet. :headbang:

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=81249&mesg_id=81249 for the full story.

[malatesta1137]

1. lol

[bemis12]

2. Federal judges

are not going to block the casting of electoral votes without a REALLY GOOD reason. i.e., a near assurance of fraud, well beyond "statistical anomalies". They also won't block it because someone without any chance of swinging the votes to their favor asks them to.

They'd need conclusive evidence.

[tinfoil_beret]

3. And your point is?

I would think that they might actually have that evidence, since they filed the suit to block the electors. Don't you?

You don't go to court for such a large order unless you have a chance to win!

[bemis12]

6. But the GLIBS

don't have any chance to win. Yeah, they're holding the smoking gun, but just haven't told anyone.

Without that gun, the electoral college vote will go ahead as scheduled. Period. Heck, even with a smoking gun we might have to rely on the Supreme Court, which doesn't feel like an exciting prospect, given their history.

[tinfoil_beret]

7. Assuming facts not in evidence.

What makes you so sure that they don't? Are you privy to their evidence?

It makes more sense that their lawyers have researched the prerequisites for obtaining such an injunction, or they wouldn't have filed in court.

Yeah, they have absolutely nothing, no reason to fight and no chance to win, so to make fools of themselves they've filed to block Nevada's electoral votes. That's a HUGE order and not something you go about lightly. And your ridiculous naysaying to the contrary smacks of fear and loathing. You snorted when I first suggested disqualifying electoral votes, and now that they've actually shown intent to do just that, your contentiousness betrays your disingenuousness.

[fliesincircles]

4. Even if they don't

Block the casting of electoral votes, the judges might rule that the only way the vote could be blocked is if condition "A" and condition "B" are met. That would create some sort of black and white standard that if met, would be harder to challenge in the future. Maybe the Glibs want something on record.

[tinfoil_beret]

8. Good point.

A ruling one way or another will benefit the plaintiffs.

[lcordero]

5. Wall Street is hurting

From this recession, and both the overseas and domestic boycott.