Questions #6 & 9

Dec 5 08:46 UTC 2000

The Florida legislature, soon to perhaps have something to do with the
current USA presidential election is refered to in the media as
'republican dominated' with only 2/3s of members identified as such. 
Yet the Florida Supreme Court with 0 republicans is never refered to in
the media as 'DNC dominated'?  News media types delight in pointing out
that Florida Secretary of State Kathy 'the bod' Harris worked on the
Bush campaign yet nobody notices that Robert Butterworth, the Florida
Attorney General was the chairperson of the Gore campaign for the state.
GW Bush graduated with an MBA from Yale while Al-the-pal 'dropped out'
of any advanced degree yet 'dubya' is seen as the idiot.  (dubya -v-
bubba, what a contest...)

Well over 90% of 'working journalists' voted for Clinton.

response 2 of 14:

Dec 5 14:16 UTC 2000

The judiciary is non-partisan, although appointed by the partisan executive
and approved by the partisan legislature (when they are not approved by the
electorate at large).  Nonetheless, I've yet to see a news article that
has not reminded that the Florida State Supreme Court justices were *all*
appointed by Democratic governors.

The legislature's bread and butter is partisan politics.  So they get painted
with the partisan brush.

The Bush camp has made a VERY good case for any action the legislature takes
being thrown out without even opening the envelope:  They have argued
strenously that the Florida State Supreme Court's decision rewrote election
law after the election.  And how else could the legislature appoint its own
electors, without rewriting the election law after the election?

response 4 of 14:

Dec 5 16:54 UTC 2000

Re: #2: The law that would allowe the FL legislature to select its own slate
of electors is already on the books.  There is no "new law" being made.
But nice spin - you should seek a job with the DNC.

response 6 of 14:

Dec 5 16:57 UTC 2000

Kevin - what law is that?

response 8 of 14:

Dec 5 17:44 UTC 2000

That's not *state* law. The laws of the state indicate that the results of
the popular election dictate who may be appointed as electors, and further
the U.S. Constitution gives Congress no authority to dictate how the state
legislatures select electors.

response 10 of 14:

Dec 5 17:54 UTC 2000

Asking for the basis of somebody's legal argument is not "legal bullying". 
Certainly my request that you provide a simple reference to the statute
upon which your argument rests is not "legal bullying."  If you don't feel
comfortable defending your assertions of law, I suggest you couch your
arguments in different terms. If you can't support your positions, and
choose to make baseless insults when called upon to do so, do feel free to
make good on your threat to take your ball and go home.

response 12 of 14:

Dec 5 19:03 UTC 2000

OK.  Here we go (all quotes from http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/FedLaw.ht
ml):

    The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in
    each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November,
    in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and
    Vice President (USC 3, Chap 1, Sec 1).

    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 (USC 3, Chap 1,
    Sec 2).

    If any State shall 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, such
    determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and
    made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors,
    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 (USC 3, Chap 1, Sec 5).

Seems clear to me:  Unless Florida's legislature passed a law allowing
them to determine the electors before November 7 of this year, they can't.
The recounting and contesting procedures they've established can be used,
but they can't just throw that all over and say, "Here are our electors."
They *could* have done so a month ago, before the election was held, but
not now.


What have I mis-interpreted?

response 14 of 14:

Dec 5 19:12 UTC 2000

Joe - that depends upon how you read the statute. If you read section five
as creating a "safe harbor" for appointment of electors - "meet these
requirements, and Congress will leave your appointments alone" - there is
no inconsistency with section two. The difference is, Congress may challenge
the appointment made under section two, as it does not fall under the
"safe harbor" of section five. This *is* inconsistent with how the Republicans
have argued that section five should be interpreted, but would be consistent
with the position advanced by the Democrats.

Also, while the statute itself may be an unconstitutional interference with
the appointment of electors by the state legislatures, there is nothing in
the Constitution itself which would prohibit the legislature from acting.
However, there is some question as to whether the legislature's action would
be permitted under broader constitutional arguments, or whether it would be
consistent with Florida's own laws. Also, a legislative act appointing
electors would have to be signed by Jeb Bush to become effective - and I'm
not sure it would be good for G.W. for that to happen.