Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Recall Followup 18

Journal by pudge

After hearing some of the oral arguments today in the Ninth Circuit, I am leaning the other way.

My argument before rested on the fact that the State of California has determined that the punchcard machines wil be decertified as of a certain date, that they will not be used as of March 2004, that they are not adequate for use in a statewide election.

However, one thing struck me today, in regard to that. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circus^WCircuit (a slip of the tongue made today by ACLU lawyer Mark Rosenbaum) noted that while the Secretary of State did agree to decertify the machines, and replace them for the March election, there was no finding made that there was an unacceptable error rate in those machines. ACLU lawyer Laurence Tribe agreed.

What does this mean, in relation to my argument? I contended that the state said the machines were found to be inadeqaute. That isn't the case. The state never said they are inadequate. The state said that they will not be used as of March 2004.

The ACLU case was pretty weak, I think. I can't see them winning the case. They did argue persuasively that the machines are inadequate, but not at a level where the federal government should step in. They tried to link it to the voting rights act, but couldn't show that this is related to discrimination of minorities, in my opinion. It was a stretch, at least.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Recall Followup More

Recall Followup

Comments Filter:
  • ...but not at a level where the federal government should step in.

    I don't think the feds should ever step in if there are laws already on the books. Even if the state decides that the ballot should be cast by tiddlywinks, as long as there is a definition and a method for deciphering ambiguity, the feds should stay out.

    If, and only if, there is a dispute after the legal election and votes have been cast, should the feds get involved, like in Florida. But preventing a legal election when all of the crite
    • I don't think the feds should ever step in if there are laws already on the books. Even if the state decides that the ballot should be cast by tiddlywinks, as long as there is a definition and a method for deciphering ambiguity, the feds should stay out.

      But there are also federal laws on the books that supercede the state laws, such as the requirement in the 14th Amendment that when the state DOES have popular elections for office, that all citizens of 18* and older must have the right to vote. Also in
    • I don't think the feds should ever step in if there are laws already on the books. Even if the state decides that the ballot should be cast by tiddlywinks, as long as there is a definition and a method for deciphering ambiguity, the feds should stay out.

      Isn't that the whole point? There was a ruling saying "No more voting by tiddlywinks in California!" and now they're about to vote with tiddlywinks in a few counties.

      The feds have stepped in and said, "Um, didn't you say no tiddlywinks?"

      Pudge's point is
      • Whether or not there was a ruling?

        What is this, The Matrix? There is no ruling, Neo. There was an admission by the Secretary of State that the punch-card ballots should be replaced, but the courts declined take do anything formally.

        Now people are saying that there will be voters who will walk away from the polling place because the lines will be too long due to the number of candidates on the October 7th ballot. Hey, that's the ballot we have. There's nothing we can do about it, now. I have no sympa
  • "They tried to link it to the voting rights act, but couldn't show that this is related to discrimination of minorities..."

    I haven't been following this, but I was under the impression that the error-ridden methods, which ignore legitimate votes, were disproportionately in counties where minorities live.

    Yes?

    • Apparently, but that alone is insufficient to trigger the voting rights act, as I understood the arguments, though there was some disagreement about that.
      • Well, doesn't it still sound messed up? I have no reason to believe it's actually against the law, but it seems morally wrong.
        • Messed up? Definitely.

          On the other hand, I'd be more concerned about the voting machine issue if the fuss about it were made between elections. Right now, it seems to serve entirely as a hole card the Democrats can use whenever they need a bit of an edge. Kind of like calling for a stick measurement in hockey. It's completely cynical, which is why I'm cynical about how much of an issue it really is.

          Remember in 2000 when Jesse Jackson and Kweisi Mfume were spinning all those stories of blacks being denied ac

          • 1) I agree. Our politicians are scum and will only ever do something if it is directly beneficial to their party. Your cynicism is obviously merited.

            2) We're only ever going to get activity about improving elections around election time. From either side. No surprise there.

            3) Gimme a break about the klansmen, please. Nothing I ever heard from *either* side in Florida sounded that obviously like bullshit. Including the stuff from Jesse.
            • 1) I'm talking less about the politicians than about groups like the ACLU and NAACP.

              2) I don't see that at all. If the ACLU and NAACP sincerely view this as great a concern as they claim (and I view the ACLU, at least, as sincere even when I disagree with them which is why this suit diminishes them in my eyes) isn't working towards fixing the problem something to which they might apply themselves?

              3) That wasn't intended as a precise historical statement -- but, in fact, both Jackson and Mfume were uncriti
              • Ok. With you on 3. But I don't really see how this suit doesn't count as "working towards fixing the problem."

                Until this surprise election, it looked as if those (bad, whether or not there's a ruling) machines would be disposed of by the time we got back to the polls. Now it doesn't, and they're acting. Previously there was no indication that they'd need to act.

                Admittedly, I don't see why these machines are such a big deal, but it's possible to look at the ACLU & the NAACP in this situation and not se
        • What seems morally wrong? That our voting systems are not entirely accurate? Perhaps, but that is nothing new with this election, and won't change with the next one, and the courts must be practical.
          • It seems morally wrong that our voting systems are more accurate for rich people than they are for poor people. And I think that waiting a few months is practical. Like you said before, this is a unique election, and it's not the presidency we're talking about.

            However, I don't think that it's very morally wrong, only because I don't think it's going to be very innaccurate, but I haven't any idea of how bad the machines are in those counties. Does it increase the margin of error by .1%? 1%? 10%?. Either whi
            • The problem is that there was no really good evidence that the voting systems ARE worse for poor people than for rich people.
    • According to the ACLU [aclu.org], yes:

      "since minority voters would be disproportionately disenfranchised by the defective machinery. People of color -- including African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans -- constitute 46 percent of the population of the six counties using "punch card" voting machines, but only 32 percent of the population of counties using other, more reliable types of equipment."

      Straight from the ACLU, so I would take it with a grain of salt (not saying they're necessarily trying to be biased

      • Yes, exactly, according to the ACLU. The court found that "[t]here is significant dispute in the record, however, as to the degree and significance of the disparity." And note that the court was not ruling there is not a disparity; it was ruling that there is not a strong enough liklihood that the ACLU could prove a disparity in an actual court case, that justifies staying the election.
        • My thoughts as well. There seems to be a dearth on the internet of raw information or even statistics from the other side concerning the voting machines, so it's the only piece of information I could find, and I'd like to see the real numbers. Anyhow, at least the election's on for the 7th now (right?).

Slashdot Top Deals

Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.

Close