~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Bush Recount News
> http://www.georgewbush.com
>
>
> Contents:
>
> 1    Talking Points: Summary of Florida Supreme Court Decision
>
> 2    Help the Bush Cheney Florida Recount Effort
>
> 3    Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Charles J. Wells
>
> 4    Statement By Secretary James Baker
>
> 5    What They're Saying...
>
>
> "Well, if you're a fan of chaos, you're in Nirvana."
> - John Shubin [Florida Elections Expert] MSNBC, 12/08/00
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> 1
> SUMMARY OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECISION
>
> ~ A deeply divided Florida Supreme Court has opened up a Pandora's
>   box of inconsistent standards, flawed hand counting, and delays
>   that call into question Florida's ability to be represented in
>   the Electoral College.
>
> ~ Further, the court's narrow, liberal majority has made a mockery
>   of the idea of "counting every vote" by selecting only certain
>   ballots and providing no standard to count them.  The four
>   activist justices rewrote Florida's election laws after the
>   election -- a clear violation of federal law.
>
> ~ Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells offered a stinging and
>   forceful dissent; concluding:
>
>   ~ "The majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which  will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution"
>
>   ~ "The majority's decision to return the case to the circuit
>     court for a count of the under-votes from Miami-Dade county or all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000..."
>
>   ~ "I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of
>     judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary
>     constitutional crisis.
>
>   ~ Judge Wells said the county-by county decision-making on the  "clear indication of the intent of the voter":  "is fraught with >     equal protection concerns which will eventually cause the
>     election results in Florida to be stricken by the federal courts  or Congress."
>
> ~ For example, in Miami-Dade County, the justices reinstated 168  votes that were awarded to Gore as the result of manual recounts conducted in only some precincts - all of them overwhelmingly Democratic. This would be the ultimate in treating some votes differently from others.
>
> ~ The Court ordered a recount of all counties' undervotes, but  there are five major problems:
>
>   ~ First, in many counties the undervotes aren't even segregated,  so they will have to be machine tabulated and separated. We know this causes chads to fall off ballots and other degradation of ballots.
>
>   ~ Second, 16 counties don't even know which of their non-votes are undervotes and which are overvotes.
>
>   ~ Third, even in counties that have attempted to separate the undervote, there are serious problems. In Miami-Dade, the
>     number of undervotes submitted to the Circuit Court is
>     different from the number identified in the November 8
>     machine recount. There can be no confidence that the pool of  undervotes is untainted and consistent.
>
>   ~ Fourth, the majority accepted two different standards (the
>     liberal Broward standard and the more objective Palm Beach standard) further proving votes are treated differently in
>     each county.
>
>   ~ Fifth, as Chief Justice Wells said, the liberal court
>     majority failed "to make provision for: (1) the
>     qualifications of those who count; (2) what standards are
>     used in the count-are they the same standards for all
>     ballots statewide or a continuation of the county-by-
>     county constitutionally suspect standards; (3) who is to
>     observe the count; (4) how one objects to the count; (5)
>     who is entitled to object to the count; (6) whether a
>     person may object to a counter; (7) the possible lack of
>     personnel to conduct the count; (8) the fatigue of the
>     counters; and (9) the effect of the differing intra-county
>     standards.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> 2
> HELP THE BUSH-CHENEY FLORIDA RECOUNT EFFORT
>
>
>
>
> 3
> DISSENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES J. WELLS
>
> "I...believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand
> scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United  States Constitution."
>
> Excerpt:
>
> "I want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that  I do not question the good faith or honorable intentions of my  colleagues in the majority.  However, I could not more strongly  disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court and  prolong this judicial process.  I also believe that the majority's  decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.
>
> "My succinct conclusion is that the majority's decision...has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000,  or at anytime until the issuance of this opinion.  The majority  returns the case to the circuit court for this partial recount of  under-votes on the basis of unknown or, at best, ambiguous standards with authority to obtain help from others, the credentials, qualifications, and objectivity of whom are totally  unknown.  That is but a first glance at the imponderable problems  that the majority creates.
>
> "This case has reached the point where finality must take
> precedence over continued judicial process.  I agree with a quote  from John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, when he wrote that, "[t]he margin of error in this election is far greater than the margin of victory, no matter who  wins."  Further judicial process will not change this self-evident fact and will only result in confusion and disorder.  Justice Terrell and this Court wisely counseled against such a course of action sixty-four years ago.  I would heed that sound advice and  affirm Judge Sauls.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> 4
> STATEMENT BY FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES A. BAKER, III
> December 8, 2000
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
> This has been a rather eventful day here in Tallahassee.  Two
> Circuit Court opinions throwing out challenges to absentee ballots
> in Seminole and Martin counties.  A federal judge ordering the
> counting of overseas absentee ballots in many counties that were
> not counted for technical reasons.  And of course, the
> disappointing 4 to 3 decision of the Florida Supreme Court just
> announced, which will require manually recounting tens of
> thousands of non-votes and undervotes in all Florida counties that
> have not yet had a manual recount - and trying to do so by
> December 12.
>
> This is what happens when for the first time in modern history, a
> candidate resorts to lawsuits to try to overturn the outcome of
> an election for President.  It is very sad.  For Florida, for the
> nation, and for our democracy.
>
> Today's ruling by four justices of the Florida Supreme Court is of
> course a disappointment.  Its reasoning and result place the Court
> once again at odds with sound judgments of Florida's lower courts,
> the Florida Legislature, local election officials, and, in our
> view, the US Supreme Court.  This action will unfortunately
> produce ongoing uncertainty and could ultimately disenfranchise
> Florida's votes in the Electoral College.
>
> The ruling of the Florida Court's four justices is flawed in much
> the same way we think as its November 21 ruling that was vacated
> unanimously by the United States Supreme Court.
>
> Let me read you what Chief Justice Wells said in part of his
> dissent today:
> "I...believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand the
> scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United
> States Constitution...  [T]he majority's decision to return this
> case to the circuit court for a count of the under-votes from
> either Miami-Dade County or all counties has no foundation in the
> law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at any time
> until the issuance of this opinion...  [T]he prolonging of
> judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and
> this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional
> crisis.  I have to conclude that there is a real and present
> likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial
> damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an
> institution." [pp. 41-42]
>
> We agree with the three justices who dissented from the action of
> the other four.  We believe this ruling is inconsistent with
> Florida law, federal law, and the United States Constitution. 
> Therefore, we have no alternative other than to appeal once again
> to the United States Supreme Court for relief.  We have already
> put in motion the process to do so.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> 5
> WHAT THEY'RE SAYING...
>
> Judge Andrew Napolitano  [Fox News Legal Analyst]:  "...what is
> this doing?  Changing the rules yet again, in the face of a federal
> law that says you can't change counting procedures and rules after
> six days prior to the election."
> -Fox News Channel, 12/08/00
>
>
> Jim Axelrod [CBS News Correspondent]: "One of the first people I
> saw after the Supreme Court ruling was Dexter Douglass, a member of
> the Gore legal team.  I asked him what was next.  He said, 'Chaos.'
> So far, nothing's been done to help clarify the situation."
> -CBS Evening News, 12/08/00
>
>
> Tim Russert  [NBC News]:  "...we could have chaos and a
> constitutional crisis...This is as close to a political civil war
> as I've ever witnessed."
> -NBC Nightly News, 12/08/00
>
>
> Mike Isikoff  [Newsweek Magazine]:  "...The Republicans got a bit
> of a shot in the arm.  I was just reading the dissent of Chief
> Justice Wells on this case, and he is pretty stinging.  It is
> surprising language from a chief justice of a state court.  He
> pretty much says flatly that his colleagues were wrong as a matter
> of law.  They're going to be reversed by--he predicts they will be
> reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and also projects--talks about
> a constitutional crisis that is going to flow from this.  So if
> the Republicans need some leg to hang their position on, they've
> got it in this dissent..."
>
> John Gibson:  "Mike Isikoff, a crucial question is here.  What
> standard is this recount going to be counted under?  Any clue?"
>
> Mike Isikoff:  "No.  That is exactly the question that I think is
> going to loom largest over the next few days."
>
> -Fox News Channel, 12/08/00
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Paid for by Bush-Cheney Recount
> http://www.georgewbush.com
> ______________________________________________
>