It is never that easy. If you are going to research this, you need to do the following:

1. Know and understand the legislative intent behind the statute. There are some issues in section d that could cause me to change my interpretation.

2. What cases in TX have applied this statute. How have the courts interpreted
the statute. Remember, unless there is clear legislative intent, it is
open to interpretation.

Some things to consider:

1. How clear does the indentation have to be? This is where judicial interpretation and legislative intent comes into play.

2. Are the sub-parts of section d inclusive or exclusive.


For sure, you can NEVER understand the intent or meaning of a statute by looking at the statute itself. I see a lot of areas open to interpretation in the statute below.... It is anything but black and white...

< JVP >


>It looks pretty black and white to me: you can count "indentations" in punch card ballots or anything else that shows a "clearly ascertainable intent of the voter".
>
>Everything that I have heard described in Florida would pass under this statute.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>§ 127.130. Manual Counting
> (a) Electronic system ballots that are not to be counted automatically and the write-in votes not counted at the polling places shall be counted manually at the central counting station.
> (b) If the automatic counting of electronic system ballots becomes impracticable for any reason, the manager may direct that the ballots be counted manually at the central counting station.
> (c) The procedure for manual counting is the same as that for regular paper ballots to the extent practicable. The manager is responsible for the manual counting of ballots at the central counting station.
> (d) Subject to Subsection (e), in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless:
> (1) at least two corners of the chad are detached;
> (2) light is visible through the hole;
> (3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or
> (4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote.
> (e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter.
>
>Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
>
>Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.