Posted on 11/23/2004 4:42:40 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
A federal judge on Tuesday denied a request by third-party presidential candidates who wanted to force a recount of Ohio ballots even before the official count was finished.
U.S. District Judge James G. Carr in Toledo ruled that the candidates have a right under Ohio law to a recount, but they have not shown "that they will be harmed irreparably if the recount is not completed by the time Ohio's electors to the Electoral College must be certified."
The judge said Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik could not credibly claim that they did or could garner enough votes to have Ohio's presidential electors cast their votes for them.
The two third-party candidates received a combined 0.26 percent of the vote in unofficial results. They contend a re-count is necessary to ensure accuracy.
Carr wrote that he saw no reason to interfere with the final stages of Ohio's 2004 electoral process.
The lawsuit had asked Carr to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction requiring Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to immediately begin statewide recount of Nov. 2 voting results. It also asked that Blackwell ensure that the re-count be completed by Dec. 7, the date that Ohio's electors will be certified for the electoral college.
8,099 Cuyahoga ballots ruled invalid
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Diane Solov
Plain Dealer Reporter
The questions about provisional ballots haven't gotten any easier, but there is a preliminary answer to how many of the controversial ballots will be discarded in Cuyahoga County.
I love winning!
The State of Ohio is in charge of the count of the ballots of its citizens, and should assure that the count is done in accordance with its laws. IMHO it should not enable subsequent counts to be done by any other parties such as the New York Times. Once Ohio counts its ballots and certifies its slate of electors, any further counting is not in the public interest within the lifetime of the winning candidate.
To allow reporters access to the ballots is simply to provide them with the opportunity to work mischief. What if they put on a show of counting the ballots, and then announce arbitrarily that the state awarded the electors wrongly? There is no upside to allowing other parties to claim to have counted the ballots independently. None. IMHO.
Olberman was louzy on ESPN and he is worse as a news person -- cannot stand him in either capacity.
On the subject of vote counting, has New Mexico ever been declared or is Critical Bill still working his magic?
They will probably appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.
I saw a vendor at the Swap Shop last Sunday with big Badnarik posters all over his car. He was trying to sell people on going thru him to do a By Owner home sale. He was acting like a complete jerk. Instead of sticking to business he would scream at people in order to argue politics with them. DUMB!
So are they going to blow their money on a recount?
PJ..what are they saying?
I dunno yet. I'm still trying to get over the shock that there is a School Teacher named Pam (possibly in a town named Greenbriar) who is teaching kids and could explode in rage at any moment.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Suicide watch over at DU and Hollyweird. Parley
Not necessarily..
for every dollar they spend somebody else makes a dollar. It might even be a conservative :)
Actually DU seems to be downplaying this. The spin seems to be that the recount will go on, but just not be in time for the electors to be certified. As long as the recount is done before Bush is inaugurated they think Bush won't be sworn in. The question is how? Once the electors are certified, the election is in the hands of the GOP Senate. There is not a court anywhere that can tell the Senate what to do.
Ooh. I hear heads exploding all over the Blue States... Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well, that wasn't why they asked for the count. But, that was the only reason that could have flied in court. That is why the judge addressed that.
These two candidates would have served their respective parties better if they used the $150 thousands to campaign instead of subsidizing Kerry by asking for a recount...
This is an interesting ruling, one which might even be justifiably described as "nuanced." It sounds like if Kerry had demanded an immediate recount prior to certification the judge would have approved it, since Kerry could credibly claim that there was a chance of the outcome changing in his favor. But the minor party candidates, acting on their own behalves rather than Kerry's behalf, could not credibly claim that there was a chance of the outcome changing in their favor. Hence there was no need to rush the recount.
That's actually a very sensible ruling. Kerry conceded, so he's stuck with the results. If he wanted to contest the results he could have done so, and suffered whatever political damage that might have entailed as a "sore loser." But he can't have it both ways.
There is also some logic to the DU attitude that a recount could affect the election outcome right up until Bush's swearing in for a second term. If by some incredible twist a recount were to show Kerry with the most votes in Ohio, it would be very hard politically for Bush to claim the mantle of President. At the very least it would provoke an enormous crisis in this country.
But that's rather pointless speculation. The outcome in Ohio is not going to change, regardless of any recount. Bush's margin is way too large. If there was even the tiniest possibility that the outcome could have changed, then Kerry would have demanded (and gotten) a fast recount, so there would have been no crisis anyway.
All that having been said, there's no reason for anyone to be upset about a recount happening. To the extent that it further validates Bush's victory, Republicans should be happy. To the extent that it knocks down tin-foil-hat theories about a stolen election and provides emotional closure, it will benefit Democrats. Libertarians and Greens (possibly) benefit by getting some publicity out of the deal.
Ohio taxpayers have to spend some money to cover the additional cost of a recount, but that's part of the process. It's spelled out in Ohio's election laws, and the administration of elections is a legitimate function of government. Heck, it would be a lot cheaper to skip elections altogether, but we all recognize that elections are a necessary expense.
Ohio turned out to be THE deciding state in this year's Presidential election. With all that attention, and all that importance, there are consequences. One such consequence is the expectation of a recount.
It seems to me that they have no standing in the case since they have conceded the race publicly.
I second that about Libertarians having credibility problems. I listen to Neal Boortz here and there and he has distanced himself from the Libertarian leadership quite a bit this year. This just adds to the credibility problems and is indicative of the final nationwide vote percentage they received.
Not their faithful. John Kerry's faithful.
Democrats are famous for giving money to causes they can not win just to extend their delusion. The greenie and the weenie are just making a profit on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.