Votes for Harris could be tossed out

The SHT (that's "Sarasota Herald-Tribune"!) ^ | 9/7/2002 | Gary Fineout

[Joe Brower]

Votes for Harris could be tossed out
BY GARY FINEOUT CAPITAL BUREAU
09/07/02

TALLAHASSEE -- Congressional candidate Katherine Harris finds herself in a situation that seems straight out of a movie.

Two years ago, as secretary of state, she issued rulings in the contested presidential election of 2000 that did not allow some counties to finish hand-counting disputed ballots.

Now, running for the 13th Congressional District, Harris is dealing with the growing possibility that a Leon County judge will not rule before Tuesday's primary on whether she should be removed from the ballot. That means Republican voters could wind up voting for Harris and having their votes tossed out later.

Lawyers representing Harris and fellow Republican candidate John Hill speculated Friday that Judge Kevin Davey would wait to rule on Hill's lawsuit until after the election is over.

Hill's lawsuit says that Harris did not properly qualify for the ballot since Harris did not turn in a resign-to-run letter when she qualified on July 15. On Aug. 1, after learning of her mistake, Harris sent a letter to Gov. Jeb Bush saying that she had resigned as of July 15. The lawsuit also maintains Harris did not sign the proper oath required of all Florida candidates.

Davey heard arguments in the case more than a week ago. The ruling was expected this past week but never came. A ruling on Monday would leave too little time for an appeal to be decided before the Republican primary. The winner of the primary will take on one of four Democrats also seeking the seat now held by retiring Rep. Dan Miller, R-Bradenton.

"I would have thought it would have been sooner," said Donna Blanton, the main Tallahassee lawyer representing Harris. "We're in the same boat everyone else is. We're just waiting."

Davey raised the possibility of waiting to rule when he asked at last week's hearing whether it was possible to remove Harris' name from the ballot so close to the primary date. Both sides agreed that Davey could instruct elections supervisors to not count ballots cast for Harris instead of changing the ballots.

"It may have taken the pressure off the judge to get an early ruling out," said Hugh Ferrell, the Sarasota lawyer representing Hill, a former TV news anchor.

Ferrell also speculated that Davey would wait until after the election is over so it won't "skew" the results of the primary. He said that the judge knows that either side would likely appeal the ruling and this way there would be time to resolve an appeal between the primary and the Nov. 5 general election.

"I wish he had ruled," said Ferrell. "But I don't envy the position he is in. Either way it's a tough decision. I think that's why it's taking him so long."

[Joe Brower]

Regarding your post #39: Well said.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

I was peeved. The Dems. have been playing us for too long. When we start fighting with each other...check the day's news. Key divisive issues the left loves to use...immigration, drugs, education, any perceived "allegation of impropriety"...no matter the source. It's old and tired. We have too much at stake...and we have the issues.

We only need to mention God, family and country...America is on our side when the Dems. don't manage to deceive and divide. Most every Dem. candidate would rather you not bring up these pillars of our nation...they interfere with the pro-"gay", pro-globalist-UN, state vs. family, "blame America" leftist base.

[NautiNurse]

While I did bite off quite a few nails last week waiting to hear the decision, I am now starting to realize the decision delay is strictly grand posturing of the "make 'em sweat" variety.

I believe Katherine will be our next U.S. Representative for District 13--and make that (R-Florida)!

[section9]

The judge might rule against Katharine. Either way, she wins on appeal. More than likely, the judge will dismiss the case. I just don't see him throwing her off for this oversight.

As to Hill? His career in the Republican Party of Florida is over.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[be131]

It was pointed out on another thread a few weeks ago that since the US Constitution doesn't require the resignation that Florida law can't prevent her from running for federal office, only another state office.

Wouldn't the resign-to-run requirement count as a permissible time-place-manner restriction?

[ghostrider]

See post #33

I was proud of the way Kathryn Harris handled herself during the difficult time of the election. She deserves great credit for that. Now, it is bewildering to me why she is stumbling around looking silly as she spins the need for special treatment for something that she says is not a factor. If there is no need to make excuses for missing a deadline that she didn't have too meet, then she should just say so and press on. This stuff about special circumstances, because her current job was abolished is just a lame attempt at spin. I got a belly full of the clinton's fabricating complex stories to cover up what the simple truth would explain and clear. There is no reason to accept it from the other side now.

[JoeMomma]

Who care what the Left collectively think? Katherine Harris broke the law; it's not even disputable. It's useless to defend her. The law in regards to resign-to-run is pretty black-and-white. She turned in her resignation on August 1 when it should have been July 15. She still had time in her term left (Jeb appointed Jim Smith to replace her until the SOS office is abolished), and was subject to the law.

Ms Harris bravely stood up against unfair criticism in the 2000 election, and no one can take that away from her. But the criticism of her now IS fair and justified. She goofed up and saying sorry won't remedy it.

[JoeMomma]

This stuff about special circumstances, because her current job was abolished is just a lame attempt at spin.

Actually, the SOS term hasn't ended yet. Had the FL SOS office been abolished on July 15, there would be no need for her to resign. Since there is still time in her term, and the SOS office is still open, she is responsible for following the law, even when it applies to her.

[Dark Knight]

The law as stated only allowed one remedy for not resigning. That was the automatic resignation from the date of filing.

The law said absolutely nothing about taking the person off the ballot, not counting votes or any other silliness. For a court to even hear this case is ludicrous. There is no basis in law for doing it. That is what summary judgement is for. Any judge that continues it, and damages her run for office is just making up law as they go. And I believe the Supreme Court of the state of Florida knows all about that.

DK

[Joe Brower]

Harris' last acts legal, according to review

So for one mistake that's been blown totally out of proportion by the leftmedia, we are ready to throw Harris to the dogs, ignore all the good she has done (like getting GW in the White House), and elect a worthless RINO instead.

No wonder the socialists are kicking our asses.

[cyncooper]

Ping

[Theyknow]

There most certainly is a penalty, Florida Statute § 99.012(6) gives an elector (voter) in an election where the candidate failed to comply with the resign to run requirement the right to petition the court for the removal of the candidate's name from the ballot. It is just that simple. The law exists, you shouldn't believe me, look it up. It is part of the resign to run statute which MUST BE READ IN IT"S ENTIRETY. By saying that the court has no authority only makes people angry at a time we need to unite. This will remain a Republican seat unless the fighting gets so bad that the voters stay home.

[Theyknow]

I don't know if Butterworth is opposed in the primary, but if he is it is only a Rat has standing to bring this suit (Republicans can't vote in the primary so they aren't electors). Only after the primary any member of the electorate can bring and action against him. If Harris loses there is a Republican out there somewhere who will sue, I promise. Taking care of this in the primary is a better strategic move because this way the party has a candidate to run in the fall. If Butterworth loses the suit, the seat will automatically go to the Republican, unless the Rats can run a successful write-in campaign.

[Joe Brower]

In reference to 99.012(6) :

99.012 Restrictions on individuals qualifying for public office

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0099/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch0099->Section%20012

You'll have to copy and paste this URL into your browser, due to the ">" characters embedded in the string.

Note that no provision is made of this specific situation, where the candidate in question is running for FEDERAL office.

[Theyknow]

"Note that no provision is made of this specific situation, where the candidate in question is running for FEDERAL office."

As I said. this is why we have judges, to settle matters of law. The quality of Hill's argument is what is at issue. It is a fallacy to say there is no argument to be made.

[Joe Brower]

I'd feel better if such an important issue wasn't in the hands of such an activist, left-wing judge. Think that's an accident? Anyone who thinks that judges aren't politically motivated are kidding themselves.

[MissAmericanPie]

Kinda stupid of her, she should have known they would be laying for her. What kind of job would she do in congress?

What will be interesting is watching the Floriduh Supremes go back on their,"voters intent", claim to cast her off.

[Joe Brower]

Yes, she (and her handlers) blundered. Still no reason to throw her to the dogs.

As for how well she'll do in Congress, well, judging from many of the creatures that currently inhabit that particular place, it wouldn't be very hard to do much better than most.

Let's face it, folks, none of this would have even come up if the radical left hadn't been coming after her with daggers drawn ever since she (rightly) enabled GW Bush to become POTUS. The democrats would just assassinate her outright if they thought they could get away with it.

[Theyknow]

"I'd feel better if such an important issue wasn't in the hands of such an activist, left-wing judge. Think that's an accident? Anyone who thinks that judges aren't politically motivated are kidding themselves"


I'm beginning to think that I'm not paranoid enough to participate well on this board. Yes, I think the Judge was an accident. The Rats make that same argument about the US Supreme Court in Gore v. Bush all the time. Some courts lean one way, some the other. That is the way things are. The loser is always angry.

[Joe Brower]

Hey, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

You think it's an accident. I don't. I've been watching politics for too many bloody years to be that naive.

As for the loser always being angry, well, it's us who will be the losers if Hill wins the primary because of his backstabbing lawsuit.