Peter,


>Bush and Baker have been making the claim that manual recounts are improper in Florida because there are no statewide standards for how to count ballots. It is reasonable to ask what is the law in Texas.

I'd disagree. Again, we are not a Demorcacy but a Republic.

Florida and Texas are both soverign states. Their laws, barring any imposition from the Federal courts are entirely their own. What the laws are in Texas really have nothing to do with what the laws are in Florida.

What matters are Florida laws and US laws - plus nothing else that I can see. Texas laws apply to Texas.

Now, as to the actual merits of those laws and their application, Mr. Gore is using the legal system to 'divine' that right now. I suppose he'll continue until he gets the results he wants or cannot go any further.

IMO, regardless of who wins, it sure seems to me that Mr. Gore is dangerously close to elevating his own desire to win above four balot counts, all of which have concluded that Mr. Bush has won the popular vote in Florida.

Guess we'll see...


>
>Q) Does Texas allow manual counting in place of electronic counting?
>A) Yes, if automatic counting "becomes impracticable for any reason."
>
>Q) Is there a single-standard for how to count votes?
>A) No. Multiple methods are described. All of these methods are stated to be less important than the intent of the voter: "Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter."
>
>Baker has repeatedly sneared at attempts by Florida canvassing boards to "divine the intent of the voter." In fact this short Texas statute mentions "intent of the voter" in three separate places.
>
>I realize that different people can interpret the same words in different ways. If you think my interpretation is wrong, then I invite you and/or Terry to do some research into Texas case lase and report the results here.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>>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 >