>Peter,
>
>If this was the full context, wouldn't you think that someone besides you would be bringing it up? Like Gore and his main lawyers?

This is from a Nov 27 CNN story by Adam Cohen:

But a Texas statute expressly says a ballot can be counted where "an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote." A 1997 amendment, signed by Governor Bush, favors a manual recount of disputed votes above a machine recount.

I think it came up in FL SC hearing and the Bush lawyers claimed to be unfamiliar with this law. The Texas law has no bearing legally in the FL cases. And hypocrisy is not legally significant either...


>Everytime someone does mention this area someone shoots them down. Why is this. I do not want to be a lawyer,,,do you?

No :-)


Peter