Question re: Arnebeck's suit

[Firespirit]

I am sure he'll refile... it isn't that.

I haven't read the thing. What, exactly, did he ask for? A revote, recount, or for the court to declare Kerry the winner outright?

(FWIW, I don't really *want* the court to take option #3 unless they have irrefutable evidence.)

Because IMO the thing they should be demanding is a STATEWIDE HAND COUNT. They stand the best chance of getting that, especially with the new affidavits of TRIAD and Diebold tampering.

The recount is being sabotaged. If I understand correctly, a major point in all the new litigation is that the machines are compromised. Diebold Optiscan and TRIAD at least have almost certainly hacked the recount, and in all likelihood ESS has too. Yet the recount is mostly being done on these things!

Arnebeck & Bonifaz should demand a hand count if they haven't already. This petty dismissal is actually an opportunity, if they'll take it.

[righteous1]

1. My understanding is that they cannot

order another recount. Only revote or overturn the election. If they overturn the election Blackwell will have to submit another slate of electors. Congress still has the final say as to which slate of electors to accept or, not to accept either

[Woo]

3. Voting...

Is a states issue, not federal -- seems there's been some discussion over this and it not being in the US Constitution -- sure there is no precedent FOR A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION -- but this does occur in statewide elections --I don't see why there can't be a re-vote should they call the election null and void --

It's obviously spelled out in the Ohio State constitution -- and since voting is states rights(re: Gore vs Bush)... it should be possible -- I think, I'm not even close to a lawyer, so I might not be right.

[righteous1]

5. Where did I say there couldn't be a revote? As far as state law

goes, the electors are in the hands of the US Congressional archivist. The ohio Supreme Court cannot "void" those at this point. Those electoral votes are "inviolate". They can however submit a second slate of electors, it then is up to the US Congress which electors they will accept, or as I said earlier, they can accept neither.

[MrUnderhill]

6. The problem is..

the US Constitution sets rules that would override that. It says the electors "SHALL" meet the first Monday after the second Wednesday (or whatever)... it doesn't say "unless the state can't make up it's mind yet".

If the Constitution didn't contemplate what to do in the event of an election in doubt... then the Supreme Court would be free to design a system to solve the problem (revote, move back the inauguration, whatever). But the Constitution DOES contemplate a case where the winner is not obvious... it gives the power to decide to the Federal branch closest to the people... The US Congress.

There is NO possibility of a revote (or even a binding reCOUNT) beyond certain dates - regardless of what a state court might want.

[righteous1]

8. I believe they can submit a different set of electors

as long as they do it prior to the Congress meeting and holding their vote

[MrUnderhill]

13. Sure... but

1) It's no longer binding in any way (as you said, they can't pull back the electors)

2) It's already too late. It takes much longer than the time remaining to run a new state-wide election (especially since the CASE ITSELF would take weeks to argue - we would have to PROVE that which is barely even circumstantial assumptions at this point).

3) Republicans control every step of the process. It's their judge... their legislature in Ohio and their Governor... then it goes to the US Congress where they control both chambers comfortably. There is no way it gets through all of those layers of defense.

[righteous1]

18. Can't argue with that n/t

[zann725]

20. Boy that's more than a little 'nay-saying.'

Unfortunately I disagree. It'll be tough, but not impossible. And if we get at least ONE Senator to stand up on Jan. 6, it's a whole new 'ball game.'

[righteous1]

21. Personally I think that is a dead end

If 1 Senator and 1 Rep contest the election, all that does is force a vote. A simple majority up down vote in both houses quashes it. Unless the evidence is alot more compelling than it is right now, the publicity will also be negative

[bj2110]

4. So, let me get this straight....

Best case, another slate of electors are chosen. Then, it's up to the Republican-controlled Congress to decide which slate to accept? Isn't the decision is made on a simple majority? Either way, it seems far-fetched to think Kerry gets sworn in. But, we can still go after a removal of the administration if something is turned up from the fraud angle. Then who takes it? It ain't Kerry.

FUCK.

I'll keep sending the e-mails & I won't give up on votefraud, but the reason for doing it will soon be shifted methinks.

[righteous1]

7. Yea, you got it n/t

[Woo]

2. I don't think...

They can ask for a recount in a contest of election --

The judge(s) have three choices(ONLY - or at least that's what they say) should they take the case up as I understand it.

Declare the election null and void -- new vote
Declare Kerry the winner(that ain't gonna happen)
Dismiss the case(probably what we'll get if they get their paperwork back in)


I think they were hoping for null and void --


Side note: Only one judge has to vote yes on these three options -- then goes to full court on appeal --


Geez, I've been spending way too much time on this stuff --

[idealista]

9. recount not a complete answer

One problem with full recount is that many means of vote-shifting won't be corrected that way. Look at the threads about Cuyahoga County (sp?) - looks like they managed to shift as many as 49,000 Kerry votes to bush - net difference of close to 100,000 votes - by confusing people with several different ballots in the same polling place. Recount may not change that. Nor does it help with all the people who looked at the lines to vote and decided to go on home, or to work. Or the people whose registrations were thrown away, so that even if they vote by provisional, those votes will not be counted.

Nevertheless, it could be that Bush lost Ohio by enough votes that even with all that double-dealing,a full and fair recount would show a Kerry win. Who knows?

[Firespirit]

10. Whoo boy.

I need help.

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/1633b/167fe/1682e/16834?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#

A contest of election shall be commenced by the filing of a petition with the clerk of the appropriate court signed by at least twenty-five voters who voted at the last election for or against a candidate for the office or for or against the issue being contested, or by the defeated candidate for said nomination or election, within fifteen days after the results of any such nomination or election have been ascertained and announced by the proper authority, or if there is a recount, within ten days after the results of the recount of such nomination or election have been ascertained and announced by the proper authority.

It would seem that they have more time than we thought. Maybe if the recount is conducted on machines, it'll finish early, so they can file immediately.... In the meantime, Conyers will be investigating the hacking and tampering, giving them more ammo in their new filing (?).


Here's a zinger:


http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/1633b/167fe/1682e/16848?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0

§ 3515.13. Contest involving recount.

If any contest of election involves a recount of the ballots in any precincts, the court shall immediately order the ballots of the precincts in which the recount is demanded to be sent to the court in such manner as the court designates, and such court may appoint two master commissioners of opposite political parties to supervise the making of the recount. The attorneys representing the contestor and the prosecuting attorney of the county or the attorney general or one of his assistants representing the contestee shall be present at all hearings on such recount. Such commissioners shall receive ten dollars each per day and their actual traveling expenses when approved by the presiding judges. The compensation of such clerks as are deemed necessary by the court shall be determined by the court on the basis of similar compensation in other public offices for like work. Both the contestor and contestee may appoint one inspector who shall be allowed to see all ballots and tally sheets and witness the recount. If the court finds that the difference in the count from the original count by the election authorities was the result of fraud, gross negligence, or willfulness on the part of any election officer or other person, such court shall forthwith transmit a copy of its decision and of the evidence to the prosecuting attorney of the county wherein such fraud or gross negligence was found with directions to present the same to the next grand jury in the county or to the attorney general, in the case of state or federal offices, with directions to prosecute the cases on behalf of the state.

[Firespirit]

11. So what does it all mean?

Does the "recount" clause in the first part prohibit Arnebeck from refiling until this farce of a count is completed?


And what of the second part? It looks like a recount CAN be "involved" in the contest of election. I wasn't able to find out what can be requested in the petition, though....

(BTW here is the site:
http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC)

[righteous1]

12. My interpretation would be

that the recount involved in the contest is happening now. I can't imagine the court ordering a 3rd count

[Firespirit]

14. It's very confusing.

That was my first interpretation of it too... but then it says:

<...> the court shall immediately order the ballots of the precincts in which the recount is demanded to be sent to the court in such manner as the court designates, and such court may appoint two master commissioners of opposite political parties to supervise the making of the recount <...>

That could mean that the court would order all ballots in the state sent to the court, and then these commissioners would "supervise the making" of it.

Looks like it could also mean a new count, set up by the court. And if the integrity of the machines is questioned in the suit, the only legitimate options are to have a hand count or have the ballots examined on a "clean" machine.

Ohio lawyers, PLEASE weigh in on this.

[troubleinwinter]

15. Buh-bye, Blackwell.

"If the court finds that the difference in the count from the original count by the election authorities was the result of fraud, gross negligence, or willfulness on the part of any election officer or other person, such court shall forthwith transmit a copy of its decision and of the evidence to the prosecuting attorney of the county wherein such fraud or gross negligence was found with directions to present the same to the next grand jury in the county or to the attorney general, in the case of state or federal offices, with directions to prosecute the cases on behalf of the state."

I like this part. Jail for Blackwell.

[Shalom]

16. Your General Idea Is A Good One...

...As long as it is necessary to file again, take advantage of what he have seen and learned in the last few days to consider amending the lawsuit. The specifics of each change should be considered in depth.

[truehawk]

17. I think the Recount and Arnbeck's suit to two different issues.

The Recount is to correct simple mistake.

Arnbeck's suit is about Election Fraud. The remedy for a fraudlent election is a revote.

Also remember that the Constitution is just a set of rules and that they mean anything that they can be MADE to MEAN.

And Ohio COULD revote in a very short time, the thing that takes so long is usually the complicated list from dogcatcher to judge on the ballot. A vote with only two positions would be relaively simple in comparision.

However it would be in the Rethug's favor to force it into Congress.
S
We SHOULD be contesting the elections of all those Rethug Senators as well.

[righteous1]

19. What will take the time is the Supreme Court deciding

as to accept or not, then oral arguments, then deciding the case etc etc. your talking weeks

[Firespirit]

22. I would love a revote

It's the only thing that would address the issue of vote suppression.

But if it is counted on those f'ing machines.....

[MrUnderhill]

23. Some responses.

1)The preparation for an election is not at all just "who goes on the ballot". Most polling places are not government buildings and arrangements need to be made. Absentee ballots take time to prepare, send out, and return. Plus there's no way for it to start tomorrow. Think about how long the case would have to be to get to the point a court (biased or not) was ready to say the election was fraudulent. Bush would be inaugerated before the case was over.

2) The constitution is not simply a bunch of words we can interpret any old way we want. Sometimes it's quite clear... and the remedy to a bad election is turning it over to Congress (and there's plenty of established precedent) not a revote.

3) The suit may be about fraud, but the recount is the only way to show it (or a FULL recount done after all of this is over - like the media recount in Florida... there would be ZERO way to hide it if this was really stolen). The suit ALLEGES fraud, but doesn't go beyond that. "Exit polls are accurate and elections are not" is NOT "evidence"... nor is "I had to wait in line a long time"... nor is "some other Democrat got more votes than me - don't you know I'm entitled to the highest vote count in the party?". It's more than enough to convince those of us who WANT to believe we couldn't possibly have lost... but it's not legally much of anything.

4) A revote would HAVE to come after a realization that there was something wrong with the machines... Once that happens, you need all new machines! Think about how long an entirely new voting system would take to install. The only possible quick vote would be simple pieces of paper requiring hand counting of ALL ballots (that's going to take a LONG while)

5) Several Boards of election would have to be involved and would have to be replaced... BY WHO??? The Secretary of State? The Governor?