TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris rejected requests from Democratic-leaning counties Wednesday night to include the result of hand recounts in presidential vote totals. George W. Bush opposes the ballot reviews and Al Gore favors them in their battle for the White House.

The state's chief elections officer, sharply criticized by Democrats in recent days as a partisan Republican, declared it was "my duty under Florida law" to reject requests that four counties submitted earlier in the day.

Harris noted her decision was subject to an appeal in the courts - and minutes after her announcement Gore lawyers and spokesmen said the Democrat will be back in state court - probably Thursday - to challenge.

"It's an outrageous decision," Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said. "It's a rash decision and it won't stand."

If it does stand, additional vote recounting done Wednesday would not figure in the state totals - and Bush would have a 300-vote lead with an unknown number of absentee ballots to be counted by midnight Friday.

Democratic lawyer Dexter Douglass said the Gore camp will likely return to a state judge in Tallahassee who ruled in the case Tuesday. Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis had put Harris on notice that she needed good reason to deny late vote filings.

Gore campaign chairman William Daley criticized Harris' decision as premature: "There was an attempt to bring a curtain down," he said.

Harris' announcement capped a tumultuous day in which the state supreme court refused to stop hand recounts planned or underway in the three heavily Democratic counties.

At the same time, however, a federal appeals court in Atlanta agreed to consider the Bush campaign's attempt to halt the new canvasses.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' unusually rapid decision Wednesday to accept the case could launch the controversy firmly on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bush, in an 182-page appeal filed in federal court in Atlanta late Wednesday, said that granting the injunction to stop the hand counting in Florida would "not substantially injure the rights of the defendants. ... and will clearly advance the public interest."

The appeal seeks to stop the hand counting in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward and Volusia counties in Florida because, Bush argued, the action violated the constitutional rights of Florida voters by conducting a manual recount of ballots limited to four heavily Democratic counties.

There was no word from the court when it would hear the appeal. Earlier, the court said that all 12 of its judges would hear Bush's challenge. Bush lost a similar bid in federal court in Miami earlier this week.

Broward County conducted hand counts Wednesday and was set to resume Thursday despite Harris' announcement and a GOP request to stop counting. Canvassing board Chairman Robert W. Lee said late Wednesday: "Well, then let her get a writ of mandamus (a court order) to make us stop."

Palm Beach County election officials were set to meet Thursday afternoon to decide how to proceed with countywide hand counts.

A lawyer in Harris' office, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expect a formal contest of the election - something that can only happen after the vote certification Harris announced Wednesday night.

Florida's 25 electoral votes will settle the presidential election.

Harris stepped to the microphones to make her announcement seven hours after a 2 p.m. deadline she had set for counties to petition for the right to update their returns.

She said four counties had done so - Democratic-leaning Broward, Palm and Miami-Dade and GOP stronghold Collier - and she had reviewed their paperwork.

"The reasons given in the requests are insufficient to warrant waiver of the unambiguous filing deadline imposed by the Florida Legislature," she said, without further elaboration.

Earlier in the day, Harris led the parade to the Florida Supreme Court with an early-morning lawsuit asking the justices to block the hand recounts at least temporarily, and to consolidate election-related lawsuits. The court turned her down without a hearing.

The Bush campaign has fought to stop the recounts on several fronts.

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III argued on Wednesday that the "process is unfair, gives rise to human error, gives rise to the potential for great mischief."

Baker lamented the proliferation of lawsuits, saying the situation has "run amok now."

Warren Christopher, the former secretary of state chosen to lead Gore's recount, defended the legal strategy. "We simply must, in order to protect the rights of the vice president in this matter, enable us to take steps that seem warranted," Christopher said.

In rejecting Harris' suit, the justices, all chosen by Democratic governors, did not address the many other election-related legal challenges making their way through Florida courts.

The Bush camp noted that the state high court's one-paragraph rejection slip did not address the substance of Harris' request. The court left open the option that Harris could sue in a lower state court, or make her arguments another way.

The state high court agreed to review complaints from two South Florida counties - Broward and Palm Beach - that say they are confused about how to proceed with recounts. Harris and state Democratic Attorney General Bob Butterworth have given the counties conflicting guidance. The counties are suing both.

The status of recounts in four counties hand-picked by Democrats shifted quickly:

-Officials in Palm Beach, where concerns about the ballot design prompted the Florida dispute, left Wednesday without starting their manual recount. They plan to meet Thursday afternoon to decide how to begin.

-Election officials in Broward County reversed course and authorized a hand recount they previously had rejected. The county canvassing board approved the recount 2-1, with the pivotal vote cast by chairman Robert W. Lee, a Democrat and county judge who switched his vote. Republicans lost a court battle to block the recount.

-Volusia has already completed its recount and reported it to the state;

-Miami-Dade, Florida's largest, has declined a countywide hand recount for the time being. All are heavily Democratic areas where Gore supporters hope to find additional votes for the vice president.

In Gadsden County, west of Tallahassee, a new dispute arose after county election officials announced a recheck of more than 2,000 ballots that had been rejected by voting machines gave Gore a net gain of 153. The gain helped whittle Bush's statewide lead to 300 in new figures announced Tuesday.

Republicans complained that those disputed ballots should not have been counted; Democrats on Wednesday withdrew a request to review the disputed ballots.

The legality of the recounts is being challenged on several fronts by Republicans, while Democrats countered that Florida law allows them.

"Under Florida law, any candidate has a right to get a manual recount," Gore lawyer David Boies said. "What we're saying is: Don't change the rules in the middle of the game, don't shut out the manual recount here when that has been a traditional part of Florida law

-- barney fife (barneyfife@aol.com), November 16, 2000

Answers

MORE GORE NIGHTMARE!!!

Bush to Gore: Recount 'Arbitrary'

Updated 11:48 PM ET November 15, 2000

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

Al Gore made a surprise proposal for a statewide hand recount of Florida's 6 million ballots Wednesday night and George W. Bush swiftly rejected it, calling the effort under way in several Democratic-leaning counties an "arbitrary and chaotic" way to settle the presidential race.

The two clashed long distance - and on national TV - after Florida's Republican secretary of state rejected requests from the counties to update presidential vote totals with the results of hand recounts underway at Gore's urging. The vice president is counting on the ballot reviews to overtake Bush, who holds a 300-vote lead in the decisive state.

With their futures tied up in a knot of legal battles, Bush and Gore called for a quick end to the contested election but disagreed on how to do it.

"Our goal must be what is right for America," the vice president said at his official mansion in Washington.

"This process must be fair, this process must be accurate, and this process must be final," Bush said from the governor's mansion in Austin.

Their evening addresses capped a whirlwind day of legal activity that gave both weary camps tastes of victory and defeat - but no clear road to completion.

The Florida Supreme Court, all Democratic appointees, rejected a request from Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris to block any manual recounts while the courts decide whether the process is legal.

The high court's ruling, though far from the final word, gave Democrats new vigor in their ballot-by-ballot bid to trim Bush's 300-vote lead in the state. Officials in Broward and Palm Beach counties hunkered down for an excruciating hand count of 1 million ballots.

But the secretary of state later announced she would not accept the hand-counted ballots, calling the counties' reasoning "insufficient." Harris vowed to certify the Florida election results Saturday without the hand recount totals. Gore's lawyers said they will challenge her decision Thursday.

In another front, Bush's lawyers filed a 182-page appeal in a federal appeals court in Atlanta. The Texas governor lost a round Monday on his move to shut down the recounts in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward and Volusia counties.

Legal matters aside, both presidents-in-waiting launched fierce public relations campaigns in the court of public opinion. They wanted to look prepared to serve, but not hungry for power.

"This is the time to respect every voter and every vote," Gore said from his official residence, framed by pictures of his family.

Gore pledged that, if Republicans allow manual recounts to continue in Florida's Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, he would accept without challenge whatever tally those recounts should yield - added to certified results from 64 other counties and overseas absentee ballots due by midnight Friday.

"I will take no legal action to challenge the result, and I will not support any legal action to challenge the result," Gore said, offering to drop the threat of major Democratic litigation that has hung over the proceedings for days.

He suggested a meeting with Bush before state officials certify the results "not to negotiate, but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America." And he said both candidates should meet again after a winner is declared "to close ranks as Americans."

Bush dismissed the notion. "The outcome of this election will not be the result of deals or efforts to mold public opinion," he said. "The outcome of this election will be determined by the votes and by the law."

"This process must have a point of conclusion, a moment when America and the world know who is the next president," Bush said.

Democrats said precious time was wasting while Republicans tied up the recount drive in court.

"They stop and start and stop. And the clock is running out," Gore campaign chairman William Daley said of the recounts, then added in a slap at the Republican secretary of state: "Her clock anyhow."

An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed a small majority of voters said they are willing to wait for the recounts if the choice is between naming a victor now or rechecking the ballots. But seven out of 10 said a winner should be declared once the overseas ballots are added to the totals this weekend.

By a 2-1 margin, voters told pollsters they thought Bush would be the next president.

Senior Gore advisers say the presidency hinges on whether they can show progress in the next two or three days. They need vote gains to persuade courts to keep the recounts going and, more importantly, to keep the public from turning on Gore.

The vice president holds a popular-vote lead of about 230,000, and has a narrow lead in electoral votes - with Florida the prize that would put either man over the 270 votes required to win the White House.

In a telephone interview, Daley said the counties need more time to complete their recounts. He said officials in Broward and Palm Beach counties seem eager to get to work. "Everybody is trying to speed this up. Whether or not there is a deadline Friday, they figure if they can go crazy maybe they can get some (recounts) in" before the deadline, he told the AP.

Even the vice president's advisers conceded his options would dwindle this weekend if he couldn't claim a lead - or dramatic progress toward one - with the hand recounts.

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill gave Daley a thumbs-up Wednesday, but said privately afterward that they will reassess at the end of the week.

A Democratic official who has spoken with Gore within the past 48 hours said party officials were afraid the vice president's side in the dispute wasn't being presented well to voters. Campaign officials are increasingly frustrated that the hand recount issue is being cast as an unusual procedure when in fact it is not so rare, said the official.

Thrust into the glare of the nation's spotlight, county officials in Florida have wavered, bowed to pressure and bickered - leaving the situation fluid and, at times, indecipherable.

Miami-Dade County, the state's largest and perhaps Gore's best hope of picking up votes, voted against a full recount Tuesday night. The vice president was taking that case to court.

In Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, officials reversed course Wednesday and granted Gore's request for a full recount of its 588,000 presidential election ballots. Gore picked up just four votes Wednesday night from 38 precincts.

County Judge Robert W. Lee said the recount will continue Thursday, despite Harris' decision not to accept the new totals.

Palm Beach County delayed its recount until the state Supreme Court spoke on what it could count. Officials there planned to begin counting Thursday.

It was chaos bordering on the comical in some areas.

In West Palm Beach, a judge gave the vote counters wide latitude to decide whether a ballot with "dimpled chad" could be counted or not. Republicans accused county commissioner Carol Roberts of fiddling with the ballots to help Gore. Just as Harris has been labeled a partisan by Democrats from Washington, Roberts abruptly found herself the focus of attacks from the GOP.

-- barney fife (barneyfife@aol.com), November 16, 2000.

>The appeal seeks to stop the hand counting in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward and Volusia counties in Florida because, Bush argued, the action violated the constitutional rights of Florida voters by conducting a manual recount of ballots limited to four heavily Democratic counties.

This argument is pure hooey and sore-loserism.

Bush had just as much right and opportunity to request manual recounts in any or all of the other 63 Florida counties as Gore did. He voluntarily _chose_ not to make any such request when he had the legal opportunity to do so. Instead, he gambled on trying to get a federal court to override state law. That gamble looks like a loser now.

(And, didja ever wonder why Bush, who while campaigning championed states' rights over federal power, would do something so seemingly contrary to what he preached so soon after the election?)

Bush wants to deny Gore his legal rights under Florida law.

I don't ask Republicans to say Gore is wonderful. I just ask them to stop being so baldly hypocritical and self-righteous.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 16, 2000.

It is obvious No Spam is a Democrat. He cannot see that Gore is a sore loser! He cannot see that Gore only cares about Gore and not the American people!

-- barney fife (barneyfife@aol.com), November 16, 2000.

Sore loser? Ummm, let me see: Gore is ahead in both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. Gore's campaign were not the first to file suit re: vote counts -- that little honor goes to George W. Bush's campaign.

Gore offered yesterday to recount *the entire state of Florida* to ensure fairness to both sides, and to meet with George W. Bush in hopes of ending the partisan bickering. Shrubya refused.

Bush and his representatives, including Kathleen Harris, would rather deny folks their vote and "win". Who's the loser here? Certainly not Gore.

-- Just another feminist (democrats@stopthecoronation.com), November 16, 2000.

Just another,

Sore loser? Ummm, let me see: Gore is ahead in both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. Gore's campaign were not the first to file suit re: vote counts -- that little honor goes to George W. Bush's campaign.

On the day of the election 8 lawsuits were filed by democrats.

Gore offered yesterday to recount *the entire state of Florida* to ensure fairness to both sides, and to meet with George W. Bush in hopes of ending the partisan bickering. Shrubya refused.

Gore had no right of offer a recount of the entire state of Florida, the deadline had passed. Gore does not make the laws/rules in Florida. It was disingenous.

As for meeting with Bush to end partisan bickering... Hmm, funny how Gore let all his spokesmen go on television the night before and impune K. Harris' reputation. Now that the gory details are out, Gore wants it all to stop. Outrageous what Al Diserwitch (sp?) had to say among others. Should leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Bush and his representatives, including Kathleen Harris, would rather deny folks their vote and "win". Who's the loser here? Certainly not Gore.

No one was denied their right to vote. No one has cried "fraud." No one has accused a machine of malfunction. K. Harris is following the law to the best of her ability.

Mar.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), November 16, 2000.

Mene mene tekel upharsin.

I gotta say we all saw this one coming, didn't we? Now it is a matter of the Florida Supreme Court deciding if this action is legal.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 16, 2000.

George W. Bush flunks the test

Faced with a choice between cynicism and a higher path, he chooses cynicism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - By Gary Kamiya

Nov. 16, 2000 | It was the first real test of George W. Bush's character, the first chance to see what kind of stuff he would bring to the toughest job in the world.

And sadly, he flunked it.

Vice President Al Gore's offer to resolve the election gridlock by letting the people of Florida decide the outcome, without the divisive prospect of endless lawsuits, represented the last best chance for the two men, and the nation, to extricate themselves not just from gridlock but from gathering cynicism, from a dark, pessimistic vision of what politics and civic life are and what they might be. By rejecting Gore's offer, Gov. Bush allowed base realpolitik to triumph over the higher angels of our nature -- and poisoned the whole process in a way it had not been poisoned before.

His rejection was no surprise, but it still came as an almost visceral blow. Until tonight, this movie still felt like it might have a Frank Capra feel-good ending. Now it's strictly on the double- crossing road to film noir.

Bush was following his hardball political instincts -- reject, reject, reject. Assume that everything the enemy does is a trick, a P.R. move, a fraud, a Trojan horse. If he's offering it, it must be bad. It's the way politicians think, the way the Palestinians and the Israelis think, the way couples in bad divorces think, the way journalists -- who as a profession are heavy on cheap skepticism masquerading as wisdom -- think. Just turn on MSNBC or CNN for a nauseating dosage of pundits who, drunk on their worldly-wise skepticism, can't see that this is not a game, that in the end nothing less than the principle of democracy is at stake here.

Of course Gore's offer wasn't devoid of self-interest. But the point is that it wasn't entirely self-interested. It was also the right thing to do. What Gore did was to ask both camps to abandon indefensible positions. In Gore's case, that was the threat of lawsuits against the butterfly ballot, lawsuits that are ultimately groundless; in Bush's, his opposition to block hand recounts on a variety of specious grounds.

Gore's was a genuine offer in which each side would give something up (unlike the transparently self-serving one made by James Baker), because Gore had no way of knowing if he would emerge victorious after a hand recount and receipt of all absentee ballots. In effect, he was saying to Bush, "Enough already. Get rid of the lawyers. You, me and the people, baby. Roll 'em."

If Bush had accepted Gore's offer, he would have conferred legitimacy upon the victor, whoever he might be. Seen by half the population as a lightweight, and by some significant percentage of people -- fairly or not -- as an unscrupulous lightweight to boot, he would have enhanced his own stature immeasurably.

He would have been able to gracefully abandon his ridiculous, self- contradictory, morally and intellectually indefensible opposition to hand recounts -- an opposition that impugns not just the integrity of his opponent, in a way that belies his high-toned claim to be a "uniter, not a divider," but the integrity of the men and women who are counting the ballots. (His "arguments," if one can dignify mere assertions with that word, that hand recounts are "less accurate" than machine ones, or are unfair because no uniform standards are used, are so pathetically weak that it is tiresome even to respond to them. Suffice it to say that there is not a shred of evidence that hand recounts are less accurate than machine ones -- which is why Bush signed a Texas bill stating that they are preferable to machine counts -- and that the issue of standards in recounting could easily be resolved.)

He would have avoided a protracted and divisive legal struggle that, in all likelihood, he will lose anyway. (Despite the best efforts of the ever-serviceable Ms. Harris, it is almost inconceivable that any court will simply hand the presidency to Bush because of bureaucratic vote certification deadlines. That would be a recipe for voter outrage unseen since the days of "His Fraudulency" Rutherford B. Hayes.)

And all this simply to make absolutely sure that he didn't give his opponent even a few more legitimate votes -- when there is a strong probability that Bush will end up the legitimate winner anyway (winner only of the Electoral College vote, to be sure, but those are the antediluvian rules we're playing under).

One can only assume that Bush doesn't really expect, or even want, the election to be over on Saturday. Would he really want to be president knowing that slightly over half the entire voting population will always and irrevocably regard him as a cheat? (Alas, Bush's rejection of Gore's offer -- and implicit endorsement of the brutally cynical idea that the recounts are biased -- probably condemns Gore, should he prove the victor, to be so regarded by some significant portion of the other 49.9 percent.) Would he want to go down in history as the president who was so afraid of losing an election he was leading by the laughable sum of 300 votes that he denounced the instruments of democracy itself? If the hand recounts are allowed in the end, as they probably will be, it will actually save Bush from this ignominious fate -- win or lose.

But it will not erase the stain that his unwise and mean-spirited refusal of a fair and generous offer will leave on his legacy. History gave Bush a chance to rise above what many people expected of him, to show himself a true statesman, not just a calculating political hack. It is no cause for rejoicing on anyone's part that on this occasion he was not equal to the task.

The classic book of photos from the exhibition "The Family of Man" deals with birth, death, love, children, work, music and other universal human themes. Toward the end of the book, there are a few pages on the theme of democracy. Above four small black-and-white photographs of people voting in various countries appear the words "Behold this and always love it! It is very sacred, and you must treat it as such."

American democracy will live on. It is bigger and stronger than either of these imperfect men, bigger and stronger than the dismaying situation we currently find ourselves in. But based on his performance Wednesday night, George W. Bush will not be numbered among those who revered it when it mattered most -- when it counted.

-- gk (g@k.com), November 16, 2000.

Brian, actually I was totally shocked by Harris decision. I think it's right but still shocked.

"A Democratic official who has spoken with Gore within the past 48 hours said party officials were afraid the vice president's side in the dispute wasn't being presented well to voters. Campaign officials are increasingly frustrated that the hand recount issue is being cast as an unusual procedure when in fact it is not so rare, said the official." What? Of course it's unusual, it may be ususal in local elections but this is not some local yahoo. Gore just whinning again.

"Just as Harris has been labeled a partisan by Democrats from Washington, Roberts abruptly found herself the focus of attacks from the GOP." No way. Carol Roberts has not been scrutinized the way Harris has been. GOP didn't dig into her past and dragged her down in the mud, screaming "conflict of interest, she wants to be ambassador" and similar comments.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 16, 2000.

>> Brian, actually I was totally shocked by Harris decision. I think it's right but still shocked. <<

If you were convinced by the arguments that this decision was right, then why wouldn't you expect her to accept the same arguments?

[Shrugs.] Oh, well.

For me, she telegraphed her intention as far as I could see, by requesting the county elections commissions to submit written justifications as to why she should accept their recount totals. This clearly defines her default position as rejection and attempts to deflect the responsibility for proper justification from herself to the elections commissions. In her scenario, the county boards were the supplicants and they were at her mercy.

Soon, however, she will need to justify her decision before the Florida Supreme Court. If she cannot make a persuasive case that this exercise of her discretion was in the public interest, she will fail. By not laying a careful groundwork for justifying herself, and though her efforts to foist the entire responsibility onto others to convince her, I sense she is playing a weak hand. I predict she'll lose this battle and will become extraneous to the final result.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 16, 2000.

Shrugs, Oh well... I think the law is clear, the votes need to be certified by a deadline. I thought seeing the highly charged atmosphere, she'd allow the recount and again was totally shocked she stuck to the letter of the law. Wait a minute I'm explaining myself to Brian? Oh no, what has this turmoil done to me?! :>

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 16, 2000.

No way. Carol Roberts has not been scrutinized the way Harris has been. GOP didn't dig into her past and dragged her down in the mud, screaming "conflict of interest, she wants to be ambassador" and similar comments.

She did get lots of death threats, though. Don't know if Harris got any of those.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 16, 2000.

Text of letter sent Wednesday by Palm Beach County elections officials to Secretary of State Katherine Harris

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0045H0

-- (The@2000.election), November 16, 2000.

>> ... totally shocked she stuck to the letter of the law.<<

The letter of the law?

Her position reminds me a little of the sysops at EZ Board. Ms. Harris is permitted to reject the reasons submitted by the county officials, saying that they are insufficient, without ever defining exactly what she does consider sufficient. This is why I said she is playing a weak hand.

By leaving open the exact definition of what is "sufficient", Harris has created a vacuum that the court must step in to fill. The court is now free to define the boundaries of what constitute "sufficient" reasons to accept amendments to a vote count after the mandated certification date. It may then apply that standard to the reasons submitted to her. Had Harris set up her own clear standard by which she measured the reasons submitted to her, she'd be playing a much stronger hand.

I have not read whatever statement she issued when she rejected the reasons submitted to her. Near as I can make out from the sketchy reports I've seen, her statement amounts to not much more than saying, 'I'm the Secretary of State; I get to decide; I reject these arguments. I have spoken.'

In a nation that sets great store by rule of law and avoidance of dictatorial exercise of power, this kind of a statement would not provide the necessary fig leaf. What was called for was for her to set a reasonable hurdle for the counties to clear, while setting it high enough that they obviously did not clear it. I need to see what she said in more detail, but my first impression is that she goofed and blew her chance to influence the outcome. The courts now have a big white space to color in, using their judgement, because she abdicated hers.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 16, 2000.

Brian:

While I think your analysis is good, I have to wonder what an *inadequate* reason "to accept amendments to a vote count after the mandated certification date" might be.

The only reason for late counts in this case, as far as I can tell, boils down to "we couldn't get it done by the deadline. It's a slow process that takes too long." After all, there were no particular problems, no machine failures, no emergencies or unusual snafus, etc. For a higher court to fill in that white space despite nothing at all exceptional to point to, that higher court must effectively rule that the "mandated certification date" can be ignored for no particular reason at all.

I wonder if the court is going to rule that the deadline is meaningless, and can be ignored even lacking any particular reason whatsoever. Because it's going to be tough to come up with a good excuse.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 16, 2000.

Brian,

I have not read whatever statement she issued when she rejected the reasons submitted to her. Near as I can make out from the sketchy reports I've seen, her statement amounts to not much more than saying, 'I'm the Secretary of State; I get to decide; I reject these arguments. I have spoken.'

Hereis a partial video/audio of Katherine Harrises' statements. You need real player to access.

I have not found any text of the statements...yet.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), November 16, 2000.

"...I have to wonder what an *inadequate* reason "to accept amendments to a vote count after the mandated certification date" might be."

Harris nullified that "certification date" when she stated she would accept and then consider letters from the counties in question as to why they needed more time. And apparently, she was within her rights/powers to do so, else it would not have come to that. But again, as Brian pointed out, she has not defined her criteria. Big mistake.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 16, 2000.

Patricia:

I was under the impression that Harris agreed to allow late counts to be submitted at the direction of Judge Lewis, who "had put Harris on notice that she needed good reason to deny late vote filings." But regardless, I'd like to know what criteria you would suggest as valid reason for delay. Do you think "impossible deadline to meet" will fly?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 16, 2000.

Actually, Flint, I wasn't arguing the point; just citing the fact that she extended the deadline for those particular counties when she said that she would entertain written reasons for the extension request, with a stipulation. Of course, we don't know what her criteria were (at least I haven't seen any details; links, anyone?).

And that's what I felt was a big mistake; but Brian explained that part much better than I could.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 16, 2000.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ELECTION_harrismemo0 01114.html

Florida Recount Guidelines
Legal Opinion from the Office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, Division of Elections

Nov. 14 — Following is an official statement from the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, (issued Nov. 13) to assist Palm Beach County in its decision regarding the Nov. 14, 5 p.m. recount deadline.

Dear Judge Burton:

This is in response to your request for an opinion. You are chairperson of the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board and pursuant to section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, the Division of Elections has the authority to issue an opinion to you. Essentially, you ask:

1. Would a discrepancy between the number of votes determined by a tabulation system and by a manual recount of four precincts be considered an "error in voting tabulation" that could affect the outcome of an election within the meaning of section 102.66(5), Florida Statutes, thereby enabling the canvassing board to manually recount ballots for the entire county?

2. May a county canvassing board do a partial certification of the votes pursuant to section 102.151. Florida Statutes, for the November 7, 2000 election that excludes the votes for the candidates for the presidential election?

With regard to your first question, section 102.166(5), Florida Statutes, provides that if the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall: (a) correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system; (b) request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or (c) manually recount all ballots.
An "error in the vote tabulation" means a counting error in which the vote tabulation system fails to count properly marked marksense or properly punched punchcard ballots. Such an error could result from incorrect election parameters, or an error in the vote tabulation and reporting software of the voting system. Therefore, unless the discrepancy between the number of votes determined by the tabulation system and by the manual recount of four precincts is caused by incorrect election parameters or software errors, the county canvassing board is not authorized to manually recount ballots for the entire county nor perform any action specified in section 102.166 (5)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes.
With regard to your second question, the answer is yes. The county canvassing board may do a partial certification of votes pursuant to section 102.151, Florida Statutes, for the November 7, 2000 election that excludes the results of the presidential election.
Summary
An "error in the vote tabulation" means a counting error in which the vote tabulation system fails to count properly marked marsense or properly punched punchcard ballots. Such an error could result from incorrect election parameters, or an error in the vote tabulation and reporting software of the voting system. Therefore, unless the discrepancy between the number of votes determined by the tabulation system and by the manual recount of four precincts is caused by incorrect election parameters or software errors, the county canvassing board is not authorized to manually recount ballots for the entire county nor perform any action specified in section 102.166 (5)(a) and (b), Florida Statute. The county canvassing board may do a partial certification of the votes pursuant to section 102.151, Florida Statutes, for the November 7, 2000 election that excludes the results for the presidential election.

Sincerely,
L.Clayton Roberts
Director, Division of Elections


Prepared by:
Kristi Reid Bronson
Assistant General Counsel



-- (The@2000.election), November 17, 2000.