Why is she even walking around free? She helped * steal 2000 outright with her felon purge and other crimes against free and fair elections. If you ask me, she was about as “wrong” as you can be for a Secretary of StateNov 27, 2005
Was Harris Right? Depends Whom You Ask
By WILLIAM MARCH
For Katherine Harris, her opponents and her supporters, the image is indelible: Harris at a podium, surrounded by a crush of reporters from around the world, announcing decisions and results in the 2000 Florida presidential election.
Then, she was secretary of state, Florida's top election official.
Today, running for the U.S. Senate, Harris trails incumbent Bill Nelson, a Democrat, in polls. She and her political strategists say she must shake that 2000 image, which she calls a "caricature" created by the national media and late-night comics.
She wants voters to see her in a different light: as a congresswoman concerned about trade, Social Security and national security, not as the woman accused by some of manipulating the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
But the 2000 recount always comes up and probably will persist as an issue through the November 2006 election.
<snip>
Mitchell Berger, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who worked with the Gore campaign on the recount legal fight, calls Harris' claim of impartiality "the big lie."
"Every one of her actions, at every turn, was to help George Bush," he said.
Berger said Harris' decisions during the recount were aimed at one goal: preventing legally mandated manual recounts, ordered by local canvassing boards, from being included in the results -- in other words, he said, "not counting legal votes."
In decision after decision, he said, Harris had legal discretion to allow the vote-counting and chose not to. He and other Democrats charge that as a result, hundreds or thousands of legal votes never were counted.
On the other side, Michael Carvin, a Washington lawyer who represented the Bush campaign before the Florida Supreme Court, said Harris' decisions "flowed directly from the plain language of the law."
The state court overruled her "based on the justices' own view of what was right" and "their own view that there shouldn't be any rigid rules in this area," ignoring the requirements of the law, Carvin said. "That was one reason the U.S. Supreme Court granted review."