Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Disputed Fla. Election to Spill Into U.S. House Floor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:43 PM
Original message
NYT: Disputed Fla. Election to Spill Into U.S. House Floor
Disputed Fla. Election to Spill Into U.S. House


By REUTERS
Published: December 29, 2006
Filed at 5:31 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A disputed election result in a U.S. House of Representatives race in Florida will be one of the first items raised when the Democratic-controlled House convenes next week, injecting partisan politics into the start of the 110th Congress.

Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who has pushed for better safeguards on electronic voting machines, said on Friday he would make a procedural point to establish the swearing-in of Florida Republican Vern Buchanan does not prejudice ongoing challenges by his Democratic opponent, Christine Jennings.

``This is a district, Sarasota area in Florida, where there's no way of knowing whether the result presented by Florida's secretary of state is valid. In fact, I think there is significant evidence that it is not,'' Holt told reporters.


more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. truly. fuck the nytimes and fuck reuters for their shallow and ignorant reporting.
i think they should tell buchanan to go home and call them if he actually wins an election.

leave the seat open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. I agree. Leave the seat open until a new election is held in the precinct
...with the machines with the bizarrely high undervote rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
36. The House has Constitutional authority to decide what the election outcome was.
This proposal to swear-in the Republican "without prejudice" is just horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
confludemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. This is BS. House could compel an examination of the voting software she seeks
This is lame to meaninglessly say while they are doing something that can't be rescinded (admitting this Repub to the House) that his being sworn in won't prejudice her case. What could prejudice it any more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. They might at least try
Seems to me that it would be hard to find a better set of facts to work with.

They probably couldn't get a bill signed- though it would make for an interesting veto. They could also hold hearings re: that election and use subpoena power on corporate officials.

Seems to me that even if they didn't prevail in the specific case- they'd go a long way toward giving the wider issues the attention that they deserve.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. All hail Holt! This needs K&R for the Greatest!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Calling for accurate elections is now "injecting partisan politics".
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 08:27 PM by MN Against Bush
It shows just how far our country has sunk when demanding accurate election results is merely partisan politics. Reuters should be ashamed of their crappy "journalism".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well that's good news, even if the reporter is biased as all get out
Our message about rotten elections is being heard. It only took 6 damn years, but better late than never if we can get real election reform.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. Interesting tie to CA50 litigation where Bilbray sworn in 7 days after close election
and while 12,500 or more votes were still being counted and also weeks prior to certification of any result. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I think of the Bilbray/Busby special election every time I see this.
The bottom line in that one was, the House can and did swear Bilbray in without regard to the election results. Technically, the Speaker could have decided to seat Bilbray even if Busby had won in a landslide. With reference to that case, Pelosi could just ignore the Florida fiasco and swear Jennings in. I'm not saying she should or shouldn't, just sayin' she has the power.

I'm particularly interested in this part of the OP:

Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who has pushed for better safeguards on electronic voting machines, said on Friday he would make a procedural point to establish the swearing-in of Florida Republican Vern Buchanan does not prejudice ongoing challenges by his Democratic opponent, Christine Jennings.


Although the swearing in of a member of the House is an event that trumps election results and renders all subsequent vote challenges academic, it looks like Holt is going to invoke some House rule that would make Buchanan's appointment contingent on the Florida results not being revoked by challenges. This is a new one on me. If it works it would keep Jennings' hopes very much alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. not good enough. they should tell him to go home.
what is the priority here?

if the people did not choose him, he should not be sitting in the house, getting pay and benefits and voting. period.

fair elections or nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. My point was not one of fairness, it was one of law.
Sometimes there is quite a bit of difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. The swearing in doesn't trump election results or court challenges.
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 09:33 AM by eomer
The authority of the House trumps everything, but part of that authority is that the House can use discretion over whether and when to play the trump card. The House can choose to let a challenge in a state court play out before they take up the question themselves. That approach has been used before and would seem to be a possibility in this case.

On edit: If I remember correctly, there have been contradictory rulings on this question. The judge ruled in the Busby/Bilbray dispute that the swearing in moots the state court proceedings. But there are other cases where state court proceedings continued after a swearing in and I believe that the Busby/Bilbray ruling was more the exception and that the precedent that state proceedings are not mooted by the swearing has been the more prevalent view. I don't have time right now to look up actual cases but just wanted to more accurately put down my recollection. (And, usual caveat, IANAL.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. apparently the House has seated and unseated a member before
We've been chatting about the case of Arthur Jenks and Alphonse Roy. Jenks was seated at the beginning of 1937, but the House voted to unseat him, and to seat Roy, in mid-1938. In that case it wasn't that a state case was playing out, but that the House investigation dragged on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. I think we agree.
The authority of the House trumps everything else in cases like these as you say. The House can decide to swear a new member in without caviat. In that case challenges are moot - unless they are made in the House. When the House swore Busby in, the state court shut down legal proceedings in deference to the House as a higher authority. Judge Hoffman cited Article 1, Section 5 <1> of the U.S. Constitution: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

Here is a link for you when you get back since you're in a rush right now. But there's nothing there regarding other cases you mention.

http://www.networkofcitizens.org/election/Dirty30_day28...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Article 1, Section 5
If the Busby/Bilbray ruling is correct then this article and section seems to me to be to be an especially dangerous loophole. It seems as if the majority could, after an election, seat all candidates of their party regardless of the actual results. The candidates could simply all cry foul, launch legal proceedings, and the House majority could agree with them and seat them. Surely this is not what was intended by the founding fathers. This seems like something that is badly in need of an amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. I agree that an amendment should be proposed.
I believe the House could execute a coup just like you have described. This is bad, and so is the electoral college. And so was SCOTUS Bush vs. Gore in 2000. But from recent history Congress is more worried about folks burning flags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. K&R!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Here's something that supports the proposition that the House can defer
to state proceedings if it so chooses:

STANDARD FOR JUDGING A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON DEFERENCE TO STATE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Rose also sought dismissal of Anderson's Notice based on Mr. Anderson's alleged decision to forego state law remedies. Congress has repeatedly held that it will follow either state laws or decisions of state courts unless the laws or decisions are unsound. H. Rep. 202, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Carney v. Smith, at 2586 (1914); see also 6 Clarence Cannon, `Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States' Ch. 162 Sec. 91, 92 (1935) (quoted in H. Rep. 760, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Kyros v. Emery, at 6 (1975)). This determination was upheld by the Supreme Court in a case involving a Senate election, Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972), and has been made by numerous state courts, including the Supreme Court of North Carolina. See H. Rep. 760, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Kyros v. Emery, at 8 (citing cases) (1975); Britt v. Board of Comm'rs, 90 S.E. 1005, 1007 (N.C. 1916). This deference to sound decisions applies to statutes, rulings concerning particular issues of ballot interpretation, and to the final determination of the winner of an election if reversed by rulings on disputed ballots. See, e.g., 2 Lewis Deschler, `Deschler's Precedent', Ch. 9 57.3, 591. (1978) (discussing Oliver v. Hale, H. Rep. 2482, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1958), and Roush or Chambers, H. Rep. 513, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)).

Although the House's constitutional responsibility to fairly judge the elections and returns of members is not limited by state law or state judicial decision, Mr. Rose correctly pointed out that the House has traditionally treated with respect state election laws and related legal process. 36

[Footnote] In general, deference to state law and procedures is a fair, just, and appropriate procedure for the House.

[Footnote 36: It is clear that this House tradition was grossly breached in the handling of the McCloskey-McIntyre contest. See H. Rep. 58, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., McCloskey v. McIntyre, at 45-58 (1985) (dissenting views).]

It appears to the Committee that Mr. Anderson did indeed seek state relief by his filing of his state complaint a month before the Notice of Contest was submitted. As discussed above, the state Board of Elections certified Mr. Rose's election only under very unusual circumstances. Moreover, the board left open the question of reconsidering the matter once the SBI had completed its investigation. As that investigation was not completed until long after the deadline for filing a contest under the FCEA, Mr. Anderson properly chose to proceed along two tracks.

Once the SBI report was completed and arrangements made for the Task Force to review its contents, staff and consultants to the Task Force reviewed the material. In large part, the Committee's decision in this matter has indeed been guided by the actions and conclusions of the SBI on particular matters raised by Mr. Anderson. Although neither the SBI or the SBE nor any state court has issued a formal review of the results of the election at this time, it is clear that North Carolina authorities are not likely to alter the result of the election. As the Committee has relied generally on the state investigation, has not conducted any independent investigation (except for the field hearing), and has not disturbed the conclusions that Mr. Rose won the election, the Committee indeed has upheld state proceedings. 37

[Footnote]

[Footnote 37: At the same time, however, as noted above, the House has the authority to arrive at its own conclusions on any particular issue affecting the validity of a ballot or return. The SBI report in some respects was clearly flawed or unreliable and the Committee disagrees with these flawed conclusions, even though these issues are not significant enough to deny the Motion to Dismiss.]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr852&d...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. OK I'm convinced.
Thanks for the instruction. I might accidentally learn something here if I'm not careful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeterPan Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. The difference between this case and Busby/Bilbray
is that in this case there is a contest of the election filed with the House. Busby did not contest the special election so once Bilbray was sworn in the defendents in the CA50 lawsuit could claim that the court no longer had authority. While the decision to seat Buchanan may or may not have and effect on the legal action in Florida it does not mean that Buchanan cannot be unseated.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/precedents/deschler/index.html

"The seating of a Member-elect does not prejudice a pending contest, brought under the Federal Contested Elections Act <1969> over final right to the seat." Deschler's Precedents, Ch. 33, 3 and House Rules and Manual 203
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Yes, I am sure what you are saying is exactly correct.
Thank you for weighing in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. I was wondering if you would notice...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. dupe
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 09:04 AM by kpete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. You go Rush Holt! My Congressman is fighting back.
The Democrats need to get this mess out in the open.

I know that Dean's called for them not to seat Buchanan--let's hope the rest of the Democrats get behind them and start fighting.

I couldn't be prouder of my Congressman--he really is a Rocket Scientist like the bumper sticker on my car says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisa58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Ours too..
...sort of - he was our Congressman for his first term and was then redistricted. He won by such a small margin in his first term we sent him money right away and have always been on his mailing lists and go to as many events of his that we can.

I'm very proud of him - he's gonna be great as a member of the majority party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. We are all proud of our congressman in this district.
I'm trying to get past it, but I remain pissed that Rush wasn't chosen for the Senate over Menendez.

This man belongs in the Senate, at a minimum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Agreed
I would love to see him run for president someday. It would be nice to see a scientist in the whitehouse (instead of that anti-scientist we have now).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
37. There were others who could have been selected
to fill Corzine's Senate seat. Menendez got the nod because he was in a safe House seat. Congressmen like Holt and Pallone are Democrats in seats considered to be in Republican or borderline territory. Because they win in these districts ensures the State Democratic Party will support others for statewide office. It's strictly a numbers game and has nothing to do with qualifications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
13. Any additional attention to the crappy voting systems
is good. I have a feeling she won't be sworn in, but she could end up being the poster child for better elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
14. Well of course, it's the least they could do
And never let it be said they didn't do the least they could do.

Only took the LieberDems six years to learn how to open a mouth.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
In Truth We Trust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
18. Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! Nothing more and Nothing less!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
24. You know, this is just a hotbed of seething anger here in Sarasota.
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 12:49 PM by graywarrior
And daily, I run into people who deal with the Buchanans in business and tell me horror stories. The Mrs. is a huge fundy, and they think nothing of manipulating an election to be in power. I'm sick of turning every corner and seeing that name all over every building, every airport, every nook and cranny of Sarasota.

I hope the shit hits the fan on this election. Buchanan is a fucking idiot who can't speak in paragraphs. God damn republican scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. RUSH!
:kick: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Good, you can probably answer my question,
Since you are in Sarasota. I don't know anyone down that way and have never been there, but based on my slight knowledge it seems to me that it is ridiculous to think an R could have been elected in that district this time around. Given everything that has happened in Florida in the last six years, and that the people of that district suffered through having Harris for their rep, and that she clearly went insane in front of everyone's eyes, I just can't see that they wouldn't have voted Dem by a large margin. Am I right on that? It just seems to me that a real possibility would be that those 18,000 missing votes went something like 70-80% for Jennings. Please fill us in on your impression. TIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsgirl Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. This would be
a good place for Pelosi to take a stand. There is plenty of evidence Buchanan is not the winner. If he is seated I won't have any trust in Pelosi. There is one big difference in this race and Busby/Bilbray. The repubs didn't allow the votes to be counted, kinda' like Fla. 2000. Jennings/Buchanan they were stolem like Ohio '04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I've been living here on and off, mostly on, for the past 4 years.
Harris is a joke, but let me just say, she has her supporters and they are mostly brain-dead, stupid whitemen. There is no way in hell Buchanan could have won this, not with the same districts voting for in other dems. Eighteen thousand undervotes ~ people who just decided they couldn't stand either one, knowing the stakes? I don't think so.

Even if they hated Jennings, and personally, I think she's borderline republican, they would not risk letting that fucking bubblehead Vern win. Sarasota is a small town. Everyone knows everyone...including personal stuff about who runs for office. We all know who and what Vern is.

Right next door to me is a married couple with the combined IQ of a grape who listen to Jesus radio all frigging day. We can't figure out whether or not either one of them works, although up until Christmas there was a taxi in the front yard and he went out at 4 am most day. Now the cab is gone, and they've sitting and watching tv and hacking up hairballs all day. My point? They had a Buchanan sign on their front lawn before the election. They don't even know where the damn circuit breaker is and they've lived here longer than we have. How can there possibly be 300 more of those types living in Sarasota? How would people like that have critical thinking skills to determine that not voting for either Vern or Christine would benefit this area?

I wish the hell Pelosi would do something about this. Sarasota is divided 50/50, dems/reps. But the republicans and independents voted dem in Nov. What a jake. O, and fire Kathy Dent. She's sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
33. Isn't this the race where about 18,000 votes went missing?
Wouldn't it be a hoot if the exact total of missing votes turned out to be 18,181?? :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
38. If Pelosi and elected Dems allow this to not be recounted? we're already in deep trouble! - voting
machines with no verification are against the constitution, cast your votes when they can't be counted or verified?? I thought Republicans were only responsible for suppressing the vote for their own benefits!!!

Pelosi, h-e-l-l-o!!! where are you??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
40. Also mentioned in a WaPo article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

The first motion from the House floor will be a parliamentary inquiry from Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.) on the disputed election to replace retired Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.). In November's balloting, Republican Vern Buchanan beat Democrat Christine Jennings by 369 votes.

But more than 18,000 ballots that day did not record a vote in the closely contested race, an "undervote" rate of nearly 15 percent, mainly from the Democrat's stronghold of Sarasota County. An academic study, commissioned by the company that made the electronic voting machines, found "that there is essentially a 100 percent chance that Jennings would have won" had Sarasota voters cast their votes with different machines and ballots.

Holt's inquiry will make clear that Buchanan's swearing-in tomorrow should not prejudice or compromise a House investigation or ongoing legal challenges to his election. But that falls well short of activist demands that the seat be left vacant, or even that the House simply seat Jennings.

Holt said he is willing to take the heat for that decision.

"There are some Democrats who say we should seize that seat any way we can," he acknowledged. "But if in a heavy-handed way, we just say we've got the votes and we're going to throw out Vern Buchanan, we would undermine the principle we say we are fighting for."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
41. Parliamentary inquiry
Parliamentary inquiry - A question from the floor to the Presiding Officer/chair requesting a clarification of the procedural situation on the floor. Responses to parliamentary inquiries are not rulings of the Presiding Officer, but may lead the member posing the inquiry or another to raise a point of order.

What will this accomplish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. a contest is pending in the House
There is no need to "accomplish" anything on the floor at this time. The ultimate outcome will be up to the entire House following its investigation. The inquiry offers a 'gentle reminder' that the story isn't over yet. (It may also discourage Florida courts from throwing out pending cases on the grounds that the House has already exercised its role as sole judge, although it should not be necessary for that purpose.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Thank you! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
43. Why Congress should declare Jennings winner in Florida Dist13 race and investigate malfeasance
Analysis/Audit/Affidavits of Voters showed likely machine manipulation or malfunction, as well as obvious faulty screen layout/ballot design that was biased to result in making the race harder to find/see in Jennings home area. Large numbers of voters, backed up by poll workers, described "disappearing votes" or that they could not find the race on their ballot. www.flcv.com/sarasot6.html

48 precincts had undervotes of over 20% during early voting, and 20 precincts had over 20% undervotes on election day. An additional 54 precincts had undervotes over 15% in early voting and 36 more on election day. 65% of precincts in early voting had undervotes over 15%.

Knowledgeable experts virtually all agree that it is extremely unlikely that the majority of these voters whose votes were not recorded intentionally failed to vote in this race. They also virtually all agree that these high undervotes were not likely caused by the faulty layout alone, but rather that there was likely machine error or manipulation.

An analysis using conservative assumptions shows Jennings was almost surely the preferred candidate by majority of voters and would have won the race except for machine error/manipulation

The analysis assumes 2.5% intentional undervotes in each precinct,

with surplus undervotes in each precinct beyond 2.5% spread the same as the Jennings and Buchanan vote percent in that precinct.

Under these assumptions, this results in a net additional 1103 Jennings votes and Jennings winning by over 665 votes.

The assumptions appear conservative based on undervotes on absentee ballots in Sarasota and in general for Dist 13 in neighboring Manatee County.

Also based on the fact that all reported disappearing votes were by Democratic voters, and the audit confirmed that a substantial majority of the voters with undervotes were predominantly Democratic voting voters.

spread sheet with analysis: www.flcv.com/d13panal.html

It appears that there was malfeasance and/or misfeasance by the Supervisor of Elections and poll workers regarding the clearly faulty ballot design and failure to warn voters adequately of the problems that voters were having in voting on this race. Large numbers of voters have indicated there was little if any warning regarding the problems that were being encountered and were known about from early voting experience. On some screens the District 13 race was on the same page as the Governors race which had more candidates and was highlighted, while the District 13 race was smaller and not highlighted- easy to overlook. Some voters described an even more problematic screen layout- some saying after looking for it they could not find the race at all and some saying their screen had a butterfly ballot design with the race listed on one page with Buchanan only and Jennings name listed alone on a 2nd page with no race indicated. People involved with the audit say there was more than one screen layout used, but authorities never allowed obvious and simple task of looking at each screen layout to see what the design/layout on the various machines was.

Authorities also never made a serious effort to determine what was causing the disappearing Jennings votes on the most problematic machines. It is highly likely that the machines that had undervotes over 20% had ballot definition file errors/manipulation or programming errors/manipulation that was causing the disappearing votes. The same problem has been described by voters and poll workers in many other races where touch screen machines were used in 2004 and 2006. Experts/programmers that looked at the results are in general agreement that the type of problem described by voters and poll workers was likely caused by problems with the ballot definition files or related programming of the particular machines that had disappearing votes and high undervotes. Authorities never allowed those machines to have their ballot definition files or the related programming that compiled votes checked, even though most knowledgeable experts thought that checking these would determine the reason for the disappearing votes.

Programmer/Engineer

Nonpartisan Election Protection Volunteer for several years monitoring election irregularities

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC