Ohio Court results (Dec.3) Cobb v Blackwell & Delaware County

[sympa]

I was a spectator today at the hearing involving whether or not SoS Blackwell would need to expedite the certification process (the recount cannot begin nor be officially requested until the vote is certified by his office) to ensure that a recount could take place prior to the electoral college vote on Dec. 13

I have to add here that I have no legal training at all (most musicians don't) and so while I tried my best, it was difficult to follow all of the details.

The Honorable Judge Sargus was very fair and he understands the weight of the complex issues that were brought before him. The final outcome was that he could not expedite the process however, considering the recount would move forward, in the event that the recount changes the outcome or the marginal percentage between the two leading campaigns is greatly reduced (within only a handful of votes), we will have a constitutional crisis on our hands. If the electoral college votes on December 13 and the recount results show that those electors were elected by the losing candidate, it seems we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

I spoke with 2 lawyers who came in from Washington D.C. about their understanding of the ruling and this was what they (primarily one of them) conveyed to me.
So to sum up, we're happy that the Judge didn't rule against the recount in general but it would have been nice to be able to at least get started on it (i.e. filing the notices to county officials and giving them the $10/precinct bond which is required under Ohio law or statute.)
The Kerry/Edwards campaign had a lawyer present for the hearing as well, not as a plaintiff or defendant (my understanding is that Cobb/Badnarik and Delaware County/SoS Blackwell are all plaintiffs and defendants) but instead as an intervenor. In other words, when the recount goes forward, they will contribute to ensuring that it is fair and accurate, but they aren't themselves asking for said recount. I'm fairly certain that their lack of filing for the recount themselves helped lead the way for the ruling the Judge made about not expediting the process, since neither of the third party candidates can demonstrate irreparable harm to them if the recount is not expedited whereas the Kerry campaign would certainly be able.


edited typo

[IAMREALITY]

1. Thank You Very Much For This Sympa!

And Welcome!

:hi:

[masjenkins]

3. yeah , thanks for the report

I have been waiting to hear about the outcome of the hearing today. On another note, anyone know if the Alliance for Democracy folks filed their suit yet?

[sympa]

4. My Pleasure

I hope that I'm interpretting things correctly.
here are a couple of links about the case.

http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_recount.shtml

http://votecobb.org/press/2004/dec/pr2004-12-02.php

thanks for the encouragement and the warm welcome :hi:

[cmd]

2. Another thank you!

So glad that you were there. Welcome to DU.

[deleuzian]

11. Thank you! And a question...

I'm a newbie to this board who's totally obsessed (like everyone else here) with the ongoing investigations of vote fraud. But here's what I've been wondering throughout this time: What's the chain of custody for ballots? That is, is there any kind of transparent and secure custody of them? Are they in a central location? Who's responsible for them? Who watches over them? I'm excited about the imminent accounting and checking to be done in Ohio, but I find it hard to believe, if there really was skulduggery afoot, that the powers that be wouldn't do everything they could erase any trace of foul play before a recount even begins.

So does anyone know how easy it would be to alter the paper ballots to agree with a ginned up vote before the recount?

[cmd]

15. Good question, and I don't know the answer

I'm from a rural Ohio county. Our Board of Elections chair is a fellow Dem. I'm depending on him to keep the ballots safe. I'm guessing that they are locked inside the office at the courthouse.

[nascarblue]

5. dam kerry! He's flopping and not flipping!

[nascarblue]

6. How many people were there? (nt)

[sympa]

12. Fairly small courtroom, I'd say 40-50 people were there

the guard outside the room (who was quite nice) said that he hasn't really ever seen it that full before.

there were 2 local journalists (at least) and a correspondent from npr (could have been local as well, but i'm not sure)

I believe John Bonifaz was the man giving interviews outside the courthouse after the hearing ended.

so it wasn't standing room only, but there were a significant number of people there. The Clerk of Court (? i think that's who he was) was prepared for people showing up for the 2:30 hearing at 2:00 and was hustling to make sure we weren't loitering outside the courtroom. he seemed prepared for a large crowd, though that may be how he always behaves before the court is in session (he was nice too)

[emcguffie]

7. Sounds like....

The constitutional crisis part is reminiscent of Florida 2000. HEre we go again....

[delphine]

8. From what I understand

"intervenor" is not used in legal proceedings like it is in common language, that is, that they have joined the lawsuit as a third party to protect their own interests:

Definition of Intervenor: To enter into a suit as a third party for one's own interests.

Another description:

"Normally, a lawsuit involves the plaintiffs (who bring the suit), and the defendants (whom the suit is brought against). Sometimes, a person who is not a party to a lawsuit in progress wants to become a party. Such a party must file a Motion to Intervene. Generally, to be admitted into the lawsuit, the intervenor must have an interest in the subject matter of the original suit.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/intervene.htm

Yet another:

intervene
v. to obtain the court's permission to enter into a lawsuit which has already started between other parties and to file a complaint stating the basis for a claim in the existing lawsuit. Such intervention will be allowed only if the party wanting to enter into the case has some right or interest in the suit and will not unduly prejudice the ability of the original parties to the lawsuit to conduct their case. Example: Little Buttercup Butter Co. has been sued by Market Bag Grocers for selling below standard butter. Better Buy Market has also been buying Buttercup's butter and wishes to intervene (join in the lawsuit) to avoid either a loss by Market Bag which would affect Better Buy's possible claim, and also to avoid two separate suits. Or another butter company might want to join the suit on Buttercup's side in order to put up a united front with Buttercup against the markets.

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/legaldictionary/dictionary/rightrectanglea/general;sz=300x250;ord=730641663?

Basically the campaign doesn't want the Glibs to get screwed because if they do, the campaign ends up getting screwed too.

[zeemike]

9. Yes thank you

But is sounds to me like they will just run out the clock, just like they did in Gore v bush at the supreme court.
So we will probably never know the truth. And that explainers just why there is a media black out of this story, It was all part of the plan. they had a plan to steal it and one to cover it up. and all that was required of the democrats was to just give up and concede.

[sympa]

13. they will try to run out the clock BUT

from what i understood, if the recount shows a change in outcome, than we encounter a constitutional crisis. i'm not sure that the Supreme Court wants to decide another election, or at least not 2 in a row.

Judge Sargus gave the impression that he would be overseeing this case...
today was not the end of this issue.

[zeemike]

20. You will remember

That in 04 The Florida vote could have been thrown out and the election would go to the house to decide and not one senator would do it (only one senator was required to question the vote.}

so that tells you that they have no stomach for a fight, even if someone is elected by fraudulent means.

[AmyCrat]

10. Thanks for the interesting update n/t

[mdb]

14. Delaware County news. Good news.

Judge denied the Delaware County Board of Elections' request to stop the recount.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10333702.htm

Posted on Fri, Dec. 03, 2004

Judge refuses to back county in attempt to stop recount

Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A federal judge on Friday ruled against a county's attempt to stop a presidential election recount, likely setting the stage for a county-by-county recount in the coming weeks.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus denied the Delaware County Board of Elections' request to stop the recount. Sargus' ruling was a victory for candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, which requested the recount.

But Sargus also ruled against the third party candidates' request for the recount to begin immediately, before the official count is certified Monday.

The effect of the ruling is that a recount will still occur but probably won't be over before Ohio's electors meet Dec. 13th.

A Delaware County judge last week ruled against the third party candidates' request, and Delaware County officials argued the recount was a waste of time and money that wouldn't change the results.

The significance of Sargus' ruling is that it prevented the Delaware County judge's ruling from becoming a precedent that could stop recounts in other counties, said Don McTigue, a lawyer representing the Kerry-Edwards campaign, which asked to be included in the third parties' case.

A review of counties' final election totals by The Associated Press Friday showed that John Kerry had 17,554 additional votes than unofficial election night tallies showed, which is not enough to trigger an automatic recount.

[read the law first]

21. If good news is defined as the absence of catastrophe

The recounts need to begin now! or the pukes with run out the clock. Recounts now! now! now!

[whalerider55]

16. but i gotta ask the question...

even if the recount won't change the presidential elections, are ALL the votes cast recounted (i.e. could it change some of the races downticket- congress, state legislature...)?

conspiring minds want to know

whalerider55

ps symp- great work. thanks. and welcome to the big board.

[sympa]

18. not sure how that works

when they do a recount for a national office, i'm assuming that the only part of the ballot to be examined is the presidential vote. i don't know the specifics though

[read the law first]

24. feed the machines.

The recounts I've been at, the ballots were simply fed through the machines a second time and the DRE's were uploaded a second time. It raises the point regarding recanvassing of DREs (or computer touch screen voting) what's the value of simply uploading corrupted data a second time? Optiscans are simply run through the counters a second time as are votamatic punch cards. In most cases, you usually have to get a court order to do a hand count as part of the official process except that after the fact (thanks a whole lot), the ballots are public record and if you pay the costs, you can hand count the ballots yourself.

[Straight Shooter]

17. Phooey on this "constitutional crisis" terminology.

We have a democracy in crisis, the faith of the people in our election is in crisis.

Just exactly what the hell does "constitutional crisis" mean in the real world, anyway? Is this another one of those code words to whip up the people into a frenzy over something which can be resolved with a little clear-headed thinking?

I tell you what's a crisis, is the idea of bush squatting like a thief in the Oval Office for another 4 years. That's a crisis.

There. Rant over.

[sympa]

19. of course straight shooter

i'm angry and concerned and attending court hearings because i know that we have a democratic crisis.
legally though, if the electoral college meets before the recount has concluded, and then that recount shows that the wrong electors have been chosen because the wrong candidate won, then we have a constitutional crisis with regard to this specific case. as far as i know, there is no precedent for overturning who the electors are, however there is no precedent for what to do if a certified count is different from a recount after the electoral college meets. therein lies the constitutional crisis, one not so easily solved even by wildly intelligent clear minded thinking.

:shrug:

i think you're thinking big picture whereas i'm trying to talk about the specifics of what i saw in court today.

the big picture is the reason for everything

:toast:

[read the law first]

22. Thank you very much for the report. I appreciate it

If it weren't for you we wouldn't be able to get around the media blackout. Where is the media on this?

[shraby]

23. I would think a new slate of electors for Ohio would

be in order. The electors have to be the ones that the people have chosen.

[Sivafae]

25. I am not sure how there would be a crisis

The electoral college still has to vote, and the House still has to certify. If indeed there is question to whether the state of OH had voted one way or the other, then there would still be time when the house certifies the election. I am wrong in this?

[rockedthevoteinMA]

28. Someone posted last week that we have until

January 6, when the votes are unsealed in the house and approved. I don't remember who it was, I just remember they were smart - and knew their stuff. :)

[CraZdem4life]

26. is there a way to overturn an electroal college vote?

if it turns out that somebody other than bush won ohio, can the electoral college vote be overturned?

i'm currently a junior in high school and we have not discussed the appeals process for voting yet. thats what AP Government senior year is for :-).

[rdmccur]

29. I don't know the answer, but

does someone here?

[Red State Blues]

30. As I understand it

If Kerry won (verified) then Ohio would have to send the Kerry Slate of Electors up to the House before the count in January. The House of Representatives (US not Ohio) would then have to decide which slate to count and which to discard.

So, there are rules in place to deal with such a situation but if it comes to this it will be beyond nasty. I hope everyone here plans on being in D.C. if things go this way.

This is all from memory from the 2000 elections so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[rdmccur]

31. That's what I thought as well but wasn't sure

[Eloriel]

27. Thanks very much

And welcome to DU!!