Posted on 11/23/2004 7:34:30 PM PST by jmstein7
The relevant portion of Ohio election law reads as follows:
TITLE 35. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 3515. RECOUNT; CONTEST OF ELECTIONS
RECOUNT
§ 3515.01. Persons eligible to apply for recount
Any person who was a candidate at a general, special, or primary election for election to an office or position who was not declared elected may file with the board of a county a written application for a recount of the votes cast at such election in any precinct in such county for all candidates for election to such office or position.
This statute, and the statutes that comprise the recount provision of Chapter 3515, make it abundantly clear that the law is designed to accommodate candidates who h, given a recount, they have a reasonable expectation of victory -- their OWN victory.
All the Green Party and Libertarians have said is that they want to ensure an "accurate count." What the Green Party and Libertarian Party are doing is abusing and misusing the statute -- at GREAT cost to all citizens of Ohio.
Therefore, I anticipate that Ohio Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, will deny the request for a recount -- probably on these very grounds.
If they go to Court, it is likely that the judge will find that a candidate must have a reasonable expectation of winning to make use of the Ohio recount provision -- which is costly and time consuming.
Bottom line -- if the DUmmies want a recount in Ohio, John Kerry himself must request it. The Democratic Party cannot make the request... it must be from a candidate.
BUMP!
Let them try and drag it out more. Democrats can only hurt themselves more.
I don't see where it says that the contestor must have a chance to win.
Sounds like you're trying to read something into the statute that isn't in the language. That's exactly why this election was so important - to keep judical activists who do such things off the federal bench.
I hope he requests a recount so that the 15 million he still has will be frittered away and can't be used by other Democrats.
You have to read it in the context of the rest of the statutes in the section -- what Scalia would call "textualism".
He he he... ;)
I love your "Red Nation" Poster but the President looks
angry in that picture (I guess the sun is in his eyes).Yeah, it appears so. Thanks so much.
That's a poor attempt to define Scalia's 'textualism'. He means context and reasonable (the middle between what we know as strict and lenient construction) interpretation. I see nothing in the statute that would lead one to conclude it is limited to only those that have a chance to win. Don't let a political agenda and desire for a particular pollute your objectivity.
..... and welcome to FreeRepublic.com
What he said was that they were not entitled to injunctive relief to force an immediate, expedited recount. That has nothing to do with their right to a recount. Rather, its part of the usual "irreparable harm" requirement for obtaining any form of injuntice relief. Because the failure to grant the injunctive relief will not cause them any immediate, irreparable harm, they are not entitled to the injunction even though they are entitled to the recount.
Ken Blackwell deserves a place in the Bush cabinet, HUD, HHS, Commerce or who knows. He is a competent bureau, against gov't spending/waste and for lowering taxes. He should spend several years in DC and go back to OHIO.
God Bless Ken Blackwell......
No... you need to read it in the context of all of Chapter 3515 (I've only provided one portion of one provision here).
Describing textualism as "the middle between what we know as strict and lenient construction" is an intellectual cop out.
There is common sense involved. If a criminal statute called for an enhanced penalty for using a gun in connection with the commission of a drug crime, and someone was caught trading an unloaded weapon for pot, would you interpret the statute as requiring enhancement?
Ever read "A Matter of Interpretation"?
I wasn't talking about today's case. Read before you write.
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.
