Monday December 11 3:30 PM ET
Overseas Ballots Find New Bush Votes


By ROBERT TANNER, Associated Press Writer

MIAMI (AP) - Election officials in two counties added 26 overseas votes for George W. Bush amid the weekend's aborted recount, re-examining discarded ballots because of a federal court ruling.

The ruling, separate from the fight over statewide recounting before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, has not been appealed. But some of the ballots in question may be at stake in another case before a federal appeals court.

Whether these new votes will be added to the official count remains uncertain. Some counties chose not to act on the federal court ruling that came down late Friday because of those and other doubts.

Okaloosa and DeSoto counties counted overseas write-in absentee ballots in light of the new ruling from U.S. District Judge Lacey A. Collier.

The new votes would give Bush a net gain of 23 votes in Okaloosa and 3 in DeSoto. Bush leads by fewer than 200 votes.

Collier's ruling came down as county officials geared up to comply with the state Supreme Court's order that each county must recount all so-called undervotes - ballots that went unread by machine.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday stopped the recount of the undervotes, a few counties went ahead with examination of the overseas absentee ballots because it was a separate issue.

Other election officials decided not to act just yet.

``We are unclear as to where the military ballots fit in,'' said Pam Iorio, elections supervisor in Hillsborough County, who said there were 22 ballots that fell under the federal ruling. ``Everything was up the air and we were going to hold tight on that.''

Several other counties said they had no overseas ballots that fell under the court ruling.

Justices Question Recount Appeal
CNSNews.com
Monday, Dec. 11, 2000
WASHINGTON - Brisk and pressure-packed, today's hearing before the United States Supreme Court on the Florida election recount controversy may have provided the most dramatic moment yet in a month full of political upheaval.

Now, President-elect Bush, the certified winner of the Florida presidential election, and Democrat Al Gore must wait, along with the rest of the country, for the crucial verdict that could finally settle the race for the presidency.

The high court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments on why and whether the manual recount of "undercounted" ballots should resume in Florida. The arguments took place one day before the deadline for selecting members of the Electoral College.

Specifically, the nine Supreme Court justices examined Friday's Florida Supreme Court ruling that ordered the immediate hand counting of tens of thousands of Florida ballots that did not originally register a vote for president.

In a 5-4 decision Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an immediate stop to that recount until the merits of the case could be decided.

The justices grilled Bush attorney Ted Olson on whether a constitutional issue applies that should involve the U.S. Supreme Court.

Several justices took issue with the lack of a single standard for determining voter "intent" on ballots that did not register a vote for president when counted by machine.

Bush's attorneys, in documents filed Sunday, argued that the Florida Supreme Court created new rules after the Nov. 7 election. Gore's attorneys argued that the Florida court simply ruled in favor of counting every vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia said an order from the Florida Supreme Court to recount votes "certainly contravenes our vacating of their prior order."

Gore's lead attorney David Boies disagreed, saying, "I think not your honor." Scalia said the certification was directed to be changed, contrary to an earlier decision by the federal court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked whether Boies thought that during the "contest phase" there must be a "uniform standard for counting the ballots." Boies said yes, and claimed there was one, but questioned whether the standard is too general.

Kennedy asked if the standard could vary from county to county, or even from table to table in one county. Boies said some states have allowed "catch all" standards that say look at the "intent of the voter."

Speaking for a number of his fellow justices, Justice David Souter said what was bothering "a lot of us here is that we seem to have a situation here where we have a sub-category of ballots" in which there is no standard.

Souter said the general rule was that an objective standard varies from county to county and asked why there should not be one standard for each county, but then asked rhetorically whether that would constitute "a denial of equal protection to allow that variation?"

At one point, Souter said it was clear that "we can't send this thing back for more fact finding."

Copyright CNSNews.com



Return to beginning of ejps
Return to beginning of this issue