Is this new? Judge Denies Demand for Ohio Recount

(Is this new?)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20041124/ap_on_re_us/ohio_vote

TOLEDO, Ohio - A federal judge on Tuesday denied a request by third-party presidential candidates who wanted to force a recount of Ohio ballots even before the official count was finished.

Judge James G. Carr in Toledo ruled that the candidates have a right under Ohio law to a recount, but said it can wait. The judge wrote that he saw no reason to interfere with the final stages of Ohio's electoral process. Officials have said the results will be certified by Dec. 6.

The lawsuit by Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik had asked Carr to issue an order requiring Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to immediately begin statewide recount of Nov. 2 voting results.

...you can't recount a vote that has not yet been officially recounted.

So the recount itself will likely be allowed -- but it cannot start until the Ohio SOS certifies the count.

The underlings claim that they are going as fast as they can and will not take until Dec 6 if they can help it.

good thing is that he seems to have agreed to the right for the recount in the first place which could be important to have on the record.

Now the judge knows why time is off the essence and when the real problems come up after certification she will not have to wade through the preliminaries in making a quick decision.

But they'll have to wait for the results to be finalized (December 6th).

The Glibs were asking a court to order Blackwell to start the recount now, with concerns that there wouldn't be "enough time" to do it after the deadline.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. I've warned that *because* Kerry/Edwards aren't specifically asking for the recount, there is NO urgency to get it done in any timely manner. The Glibs lost my such a huge margin, an expedited recount isn't a priority. In other words, YES, the recount can happen.. and it can take as long as it's gonna take.. and the Glibs will still lose the Ohio race. (We know that.)

You should be cursing Kerry/Edwards here. Their lack of initiative is costing them any real chance they have at overturning the Ohio results.

if KE had asked for the recount.

The Glibs cannot assert they believe they won the state.

Kerry/Edwards *can* assert that. Also, they would be following through with their promise that EVERY vote would be counted, including those "spoiled" ones with the chads hanging off them.

law for expediting Ohio's certification procedure, and ultimately law is what Judges have to go by

Edit I've just realized I'm sounding like a Repub complaining about those dammed "activist" judges....... oh well

When was the last time Ohio had to do a state-wide recount of 3.3 million votes?

Talk about legal precedent.

out in Ohio state law. There's not much ambiguity hence not much room for manoeuvre - I might be wrong of course but that's my impression.

certified and the federal courts will not interfere in the operations of a State agency unless it can be shown that they are stalling, which would be very difficult to do. No matter who demanded the recount, to demand it before the counting is complete is ridiculous, which many have been trying to convince others on this forum.

State's rights versus federalism is just as vital as separation of church and state.

done before they certify.

The headline makes you think the whole thing has been called off, when all it really means is that they have to wait until Dec. 6th.

Hi all,

Don't let this work us into a tizzy. There are plenty of other things to get real tizzied over. :)

A point made earlier in the thread may have been an underlying motive in this sure to fail motion: the judge made reference to the fact that the count was appropriate once the votes were certified. Also, the legal guys get familiar with the judge, who gets familiar with the case, which makes going back that much more easy when there is a real problem, like a stall manuever after Dec. 6th. Then the judge will be pretty much forced to side with the "glibs."

If I am understanding this right, as long as both sets of electors drops their ballots at the meeting of the electoral college, one set will get accepted and the other will be denied when these ballots are reviewed. The only hard, fast deadline is Janurary 20, 2005, because after that it would take impeachment even if we were to find Kerry, or some other candidate, one in a major landslide and Bush really lost.

Does that help? :)

Warmly,

George

Speak up Dems, Kerry/Edwards, we need you. This is sad.

When the state drags its feet after certification the Plaintiffs can say, "See judge? This is why we wanted to start early. You wouldn't let us do that but at the same time you should not let them delay."

I never expected them to win this round.

You sound like you have a legal background based on your post. Maybe you can shed some insight on this...

When I called Senator Bill Nelson's office regarding the post about needing a Senator to contest the election, I spoke with one of his assistants who said he would relay the message to the Senator. But he then cautioned me that as far as he knew, there is no way to overturn this election at this point. Period.

Needless to say, I was horrified. I asked him if that means that in spite of 57,000 reports of electronic irregularities, a GAO Investigation, thousands of reports in Ohio demonstrating enough evidence to demand a recount and evidence from Black Box Voting there is nothing we will be able to do to overturn this? He said that based on the information he has been given, that is his understanding. Can this be possible?

I guess my big question is CAN WE GET THIS OVERTURNED FOR SURE WITH ENOUGH EVIDENCE? Are we all spinning our wheels for nothing?

What he is saying is: "Don't expect Sen Nelson to be the one to object."

will someone explain why this isn't news?
why isn't anyone on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x74173

1.) Recount starts Dec. 6th

2.) By law, Blackwell has 10 days. That takes us to Dec. 16th.

3.) But, Ohio sends their electors on Dec. 13th.

What if the recount, on Dec. 16th shows the wrong electors were sent on the 13th? Didn't the Supremes stop the recount in 2000 for just such a fear?

about the time frame.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cobb, Badnarik, Arnebeck, and everybody else actually has more time than they think. I addressed this topic with the wonderfully knowledgeable George Washington University Constitutional Law professor, Jonathan Turley, back on Countdown on November 9th. He noted the election process is a little slower— and has one more major loophole— than is generally known. It begins on December 7th, the date “when you essentially certify your electors… it gives a presumption to the legitimacy to your votes. And then, on the 13th, the electors actually vote.”

But, Turley noted, “those votes are not opened by Congress until January 6. Now, if there are controversies, such as some disclosure that a state actually went for Kerry (instead of Bush), there is the ability of members of Congress to challenge.” In other words, even after the December 13th Electoral College Vote, in the extremely unlikely scenario that a court overturns the Ohio count, or that the recount discovers 4,000 Gahanna-style machines that each recorded 4,000 votes too many for one candidate, there is still a mechanism to correct the error, honest or otherwise.

“It requires a written objection from one House member and one senator,” Turley continues. Once that objection is raised, the joint meeting of the two houses is discontinued. “Then both Houses separate again and they vote by majority vote as to whether to accept the slate of electoral votes from that state.”

In these super-heated partisan times, it may seem like just another prospective process decided by majority rule instead of fact. But envision the far-fetched scenario of some dramatic, conclusive new result from Ohio turning up around, say, January 4th. What congressman or senator in his right mind would vote to seat the candidate who lost the popular vote in Ohio?

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

They'll find a fig leaf. They always do.