|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, December 08, 2000 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
International
| Previous
| Next
Special session of Florida legislature today
By Sridhar Krishnaswami
WASHINGTON, DEC. 7. Republican leaders have called a special
session of the Florida Legislature on Friday in order to pick the
State's 25 electors. Democrats have denounced the move, seen in
many quarters as some kind of an insurance policy for the Texas
Governor, Mr. George W. Bush.
The so-called insurance policy has to be seen in the context of
at least three major events, the first being the Florida Supreme
Court hearing the Vice-President, Mr. Al Gore's petition on
Thursday. In spite of what Mr. Gore may say for the record, the
consensus is that the State Supreme Court ruling would perhaps be
the last of the legal relief he can hope for.
Secondly, the State's Republicans moved in when the 11th circuit
court of appeals in Atlanta rejected the Bush campaign's petition
calling for a rejection of handcounts on grounds of being
unconstitutional. The judges said the Texas Governor had failed
to prove he was harmed by the recounts.
Thirdly, no one is sure how two other court cases in Florida
involving absentee ballots, will turn out. In the Seminole and
Martin counties, the Democrats - though Mr. Gore is not
technically involved - are seeking to disqualify some 24,000
votes. The Seminole County case, has been referred to as the
``sleeper case''.
The Gore campaign is naturally very pleased with the ruling of
the Atlanta court, especially as it came on the eve of the
critical Florida Supreme Court oral arguments. But just like the
United States Supreme Court, the Atlanta court left itself enough
room to return to the subject, if needed, later. ``The court does
not at this time decide the merits of the plaintiffs
constitutional arguments,'' the court said in its ruling today.
The dissenting judges in Atlanta pointed out that the manual
recounts were unfair because they were only in selective
counties; and that there had been no State-wide standards for
counting the ballots. ``Even if the Republican Party or its
candidate had requested manual counts in every punch-card county,
the process would still have ended up treating some punch card
voters differently based upon the counties in which they lived.
The Constitution forbids that.''
The Bush campaign has decided to contest the decision of the 11th
circuit court of appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court. This, in
part, would be to steel itself for any adverse ruling by the
Florida Supreme Court. ``We believe that there is an injury to a
voter when his or her vote is diminished, and that requires a
court to act,'' a lawyer for the Bush campaign said. The crucial
aspect is time, which the Vice-President does not have on his
side. And protests that the Bush campaign is running the clock
out may not work.
By getting into the controversy, the Republicans in the Florida
Legislature are saying they are looking out for the best
interests of the State against a backdrop of a December 12
deadline for choosing the electors. ``In the event there is no
final decision on December 12, I think we will have to act,'' the
president of the State Senate, Mr. John McKay, said.
Democrats in the State legislature, are outnumbered by the
Republicans - by a 77-43 majority in the House of Representatives
and by a 25 to 15 majority in the Senate. Though the idea of a
special session was first mooted by the top adviser to the Texas
Governor, Mr. James Baker, Republicans in the State deny it has
the handwriting of Mr. Bush.
Many are also pointing to the deadlines that are coming up in the
next two weeks, the first being December 12 on the nomination of
the electors. On December 18 the electors have to vote officially
for the President and the Vice-President. More crucial is January
6, next year when Congress will have to certify the Electoral
College vote, and it takes only one member to challenge it.
Even in the present context with the stakes being what they are,
few are inclined to go along with the ``sanctity'' of the
deadlines. The argument is that one or the other of the aggrieved
parties can move the courts for relief.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : International Previous : We have to generate a momentum, says Sattar Next : Massive protests mar Nice Summit | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2000 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|