Originally Posted by benjamin
The part about that situation that frustrates me is that the court decided that the ballots were being counted in such a way as to violate the 14th amendment, and in the same decision they abridged the right of every person to have their voted counted. Its contradictory. I can't possibly think that they Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, et al, didn't notice the contradiction.
i don't think they abridged anyone's right to have their vote counted. the "recount" that was certified by the florida supreme court allowed partial counts to be counted as complete recounts.
That brings the analysis to yet a further equal protection problem. The votes certified by the court included a partial total from one county, Miami-Dade. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision thus gives no assurance that the recounts included in a final certification must be complete.
they were ruling that if they can't provide an accurate recount of EVERY vote, then you can't continue with your "recount". this is only fair. perhaps it is true that they needed a recount. but with the excerpts i posted earlier, the recount procedure florida had implemented was clearly marred with flaws. like you said, in an issue of accuracy in elections, why would you not want the most accurate results possible? because they found it highly unlikely that a total recount could be accomplished in four days time, they decided to say that no recount is better than a partial recount. which i happen to agree with
The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.