Judge blocks Ohio Recount

[mostly_lurking]

This information is from a website run a professor at Ohio State University:

"In addition to yesterday's federal court decision, which denied the Green/Libertarian request to expedite a recount of presidential votes in Ohio, a state court judge in Delaware County (just north of Columbus) issued an order blocking a recount in that county, according to a report in this morning's Columbus Dispatch. This order was sought by the county's board of election on the ground that a recount of the presidential race would be a waste of tax dollars, since the third-party candidates seeking the recount had no expectation of altering the outcome of the election."

Here's the link:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news.html

Unfortunately, the link in the article to the Columbus Dispatch requires a paid subscription (so I can't read or quote the actual article.

[whirlygigspin]

1. great link

thanks!

election law news, cool:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news.html

[MrUnderhill]

2. Hmmm. So a judge actually denied the recount proactively?

Well, I guess that's good news AND bad news.

Bad because it shows there is at least an understanding of the process that says these requests can be denied when the margin of "victory" is large enough.

Good, because it means there is something that can be done that doesn't have to wait until the votes are certified. THIS case can be appealed upwards to get an early decision that recounts MUST be done if the fee is paid. Right now, all we know is that it can be REQUESTED... it doesn't say anyone has to actually do it.

[righteous1]

3. This is important

If the recount can't start untill after certification (Dec 3rd) and the drop dead date for any legal effect of a recount (Dec7th) per SCOTUS Gore vs Bush it's a major problem. Ohio law states that the election officials have 5 days to "prepare for a recount. That puts the start date of any recount at Dec 8th, a day past the drop dead date that any recount can have a "Legal Effect"

[MrUnderhill]

4. Yes and no.

There isn't possibly enough time to recount anything by hand and "change the outcome" in time for electors to be sent to congress.

There are also not enough remaining votes (or "potential votes") to make up the difference (even IF the spoiled ballots were ALL "votes").

But if there WERE actually fraud in the election, a hand recount of ballots would show it. And with a margin of victory THAT high, the "error" would have to be spread all across the state. You couldn't do this in one or two counties, or the disparity would be way too high. So IF there was fraud... you'll see 25,30,40 counties reporting that the machines miscounted the ballots.

IF that actually happened, you would either see an impeachment... or (more likely) a lockstep defense by the Republicans than would ensure Bush remained in office... but impotent - and there would be a massive electoral landslide in '06 and '08.

[righteous1]

5. earlier i read

that the $100000 is only a deposit , the person conducting the recount must pay for it, upwards of 1.5 million.

[MrUnderhill]

6. Yeah... I think I read that from YOU.

lol.

Seriously... the law isn't clear. Like the recount provisions in Florida in 2000, we've found that they weren't written with a nationwide election in mind. They just don't anticipate these sorts of occurances.

If you think about what's happening... a losing candidate who lost by millions of votes is asking for a recount. Every state/county is going to have to budget a LOT more money if just anyone can do that for $10/precinct. People like me are going to find that volunteering to help out on election day is mroe trouble than it's worth (and becomes a multi-month commitment).

In short... nobody knows (though this ruling is an early indication) whether they have to pay for the whole thing.

[ParanoidPat]

14. Sorry but that is BULLSHIT!

"People like me are going to find that volunteering to help out on election day is mroe trouble than it's worth (and becomes a multi-month commitment)."

People who volunteer to work at the polls during the election are in no way committed to be involved in any recount effort. :crazy:

In short... nobody knows (though this ruling is an early indication) whether they have to pay for the whole thing.

The laws are quite clear about how recounts are funded and who pays the costs. You act as if no one has ever conducted a recount before and there are no laws or precedents established on how to conduct or pay for them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you were honest about what is happening, a candidate (the only ones who have the legal authority at this point) is trying to audit, via a recount, questionable results in an election that may have been tampered with. Considering we're choosing the people who will be responsible for authorizing and spending the entire US budget, the cost of getting it right with a high degree of certainty is irrelevant compared to what is at stake.

[Spera]

7. January 6th

As Keith Olbermann pointed out in his blog:

Cobb, Badnarik, Arnebeck, and everybody else actually has more time than they think. I addressed this topic with the wonderfully knowledgeable George Washington University Constitutional Law professor, Jonathan Turley, back on Countdown on November 9th. He noted the election process is a little slower— and has one more major loophole— than is generally known. It begins on December 7th, the date “when you essentially certify your electors… it gives a presumption to the legitimacy to your votes. And then, on the 13th, the electors actually vote.”

But, Turley noted, “those votes are not opened by Congress until January 6. Now, if there are controversies, such as some disclosure that a state actually went for Kerry (instead of Bush), there is the ability of members of Congress to challenge.” In other words, even after the December 13th Electoral College Vote, in the extremely unlikely scenario that a court overturns the Ohio count, or that the recount discovers 4,000 Gahanna-style machines that each recorded 4,000 votes too many for one candidate, there is still a mechanism to correct the error, honest or otherwise.

“It requires a written objection from one House member and one senator,” Turley continues. Once that objection is raised, the joint meeting of the two houses is discontinued. “Then both Houses separate again and they vote by majority vote as to whether to accept the slate of electoral votes from that state.”

---

So, hope is not lost if Blackwall stalls. Of course it depends on whether or not we could get one senator to join the reps in contesting, though, and if the majority in the House and Senate would vote to let Ohio's electoral votes be accepted... fat chance :/.

[MrUnderhill]

8. The relevant part of that post was "fat chance".

We aren't going to "flip" enough Republicans to make a difference.


Also - I question how accurate this is. If true, it would have given Florida enough time to recount by hand. Everyone operated under a different deadline.

[righteous1]

9. So at the very least "It's not clear"

[bullimiami]

13. Ohio recount rules are pure catch 22

just like florida was in 2000. the rules were set up so that those controlling the process can legally run out the clock, of course if they needed a republican recount they would simply put it in action earlier.

[kk897]

10. Dispatch

I live here and have a paid subscription and I'm trying to find the relevant article. I guess with copyright laws I can't post the whole thing, but excerpts.

BTW, here's from a different article:

"If we had 5,000 machines we would have put every one of them out there,’’ Damschroder said. "From our perspective, there are (thousands of) stories of people who stood in line and voted.’’
    A log of Nov. 2 service calls from precinct judges shows 32 requests for extra voting machines, none of which was filled. Twenty-three calls came from Columbus voting locations, and nine came from Bexley, Dublin, Gahanna, Reynoldsburg, Upper Arlington, Westerville and Whitehall.
    In addition, the board logged 101 calls for voting machine problems: 38 human errors, 56 mechanical problems such as paper-roll jams or burned-out lights, and seven problems with electrical outlets.
    In 2000, there were 46 reported voting-machine problems of all types.

[kk897]

11. OK, got it

Delaware County court blocks recount

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Mary Beth Lane

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH


A Delaware County judge yesterday granted a temporary restraining order sought by the county’s Board of Elections to block Green and Libertarian presidential candidates from forcing a recount of the Nov. 2 election results.

<snip>

In the Delaware County case, the elections board wants to block a recount both before and after certification.

"To ask taxpayers to fund someone’s political hobbyhorse when there’s no possible chance of a different outcome seems to be an utter waste," Yost said.

"There’s better uses for that money in Delaware County and, I suspect, in other places around the state."

Yost couldn’t immediately estimate the cost of a recount in the county, but said it would be "substantial."

This is the latest ingredient in a thickening legal soup.

Delaware County is apparently the first county to seek a court order blocking a recount, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.

Other counties, however, are thinking about it, he said.

Keith Cunningham, director of the Allen County Board of Elections and incoming president of the Ohio Association of Elections Officials, said he might mobilize other counties to resist a recount, the Associated Press reported.

(more at Dispatch)

[e-mail] 


Copyright © 2004, The Columbus Dispatch

[kk897]

12. you might want to change your headline

This sounds as if it's the same thing as the earlier ruling against an early recount, but this is clearly different.

Maybe "Judge Blocks Recount of Delaware County, OH; Plans for More Blocks"?

I think this may be a big deal. Like, it will scotch the whole recount effort, perhaps.

Won't scotch our fraud investigations, though!