Florida voters sue for recount

[mystery-ak]

 USA TODAY
Jeff Burlew
7 hrs ago


TALLAHASSEE — Three central Florida voters are mounting an unlikely bid to overturn the presidential election result in the Sunshine State.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in Leon Circuit Court, they assert that Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, actually won Florida. The plaintiffs, who live in Osceola and Volusia counties, say the state’s official election results were off because of hacking, malfunctioning voting machines and other problems.

They're asking for a hand recount of every paper ballot in Florida, at the expense of defendants including Trump, Gov. Rick Scott and the 29 Republican presidential electors from Florida.

more
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/florida-voters-sue-for-recount/ar-AAlbJKa?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[Wingnut]

Poor widdle babies wanna recount!..

I got your recount right here.

(insert bronx salute here)

[jpsb]

The plan is to prevent Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida from voting in the electoral college and then presto Hillary is elected President of the United States.

[Oceander]

The plan is to prevent Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida from voting in the electoral college and then presto Hillary is elected President of the United States.

On what basis?

[jpsb]

On what basis?

@Oceander

The electoral college votes Dec 15, if he recounts are not done by then the state does not vote. Take the states I mentioned away from Trump and Hillary wins.

[Right_in_Virginia]

On what basis?

 Delaying certification of the votes in states Trump won past the deadline (I believe that's Dec. 13) could mean the votes would not be included in the electoral college totals. No state won by Clinton is under a recount so timely certification of her electoral votes are not at risk --- making the ultimate goal of the recounts for her to win the EC with the total she won on Nov 8.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

On what basis?

The GOP won. It's basically unallowed in the Constitution (according to libs).

[Oceander]

@Oceander

The electoral college votes Dec 15, if he recounts are not done by then the state does not vote. Take the states I mentioned away from Trump and Hillary wins.

And this is a fact, or this is just speculation?  I find it very hard to believe that a state would leave itself without the ability to cut off recounts that would miss the certification date.

[jpsb]

And this is a fact, or this is just speculation?  I find it very hard to believe that a state would leave itself without the ability to cut off recounts that would miss the certification date.

@Oceander

Replace Ohio with Wisconsin in my comments. No recounts going on in Ohio.

Just speculation on my part, the vote must take place on Dec 15, but how can a state vote if they are still counting the votes? My speculation is the only thing that makes sense to me. Plus given the Obama/Clinton friendly federal courts ordering recounts I think I am on to something. But I am not expert in these things.

[Victoria33]

On what basis?

@jpsb
@Oceander
@mystery-ak

Remember the recount rule/law, which is an AUTOMATIC recount is paid for by the state if the vote count of the two candidates is close enough within certain parameters to trigger one.   If an automatic recount is not triggered but a candidate wants a recount, the CANDIDATE has to pay for it.  This is not the present problem in Florida.  Read below:

What is happening here, it appears, is voters, not candidates, wanting a recount due to supposed hacking, whatever of paper ballots (I'll write about paper ballots later today).  These people and their lawyer are nuts.  They can't ask for a recount - they have to go to their local District Attorney, or their State Attorney General, and ask for an investigation - not a recount.  Voter fraud would have to be proved and then the Secretary of State would order the recount as every Secretary of State in every state is in charge of elections.

An addendum:  Here is the reason the lawyer involved here doesn't know what he is doing.  When I taught election law, lawyers would come to it to learn election law.  Why did they not know it before?  Because you can't make a living from knowing election law.  They were experts in their fields of law but not election law.  These lawyers were going to run for various judgeships somewhere in the state and now wanted to know what the law was regarding elections. 

I had to publicly correct a Texas lawyer who was making a speech in a large auditorium.  I never would have done that except I had just finished teaching a large part of that audience who were election judges/clerks.  When the lawyer made a big mistake regarding the conduct of county elections, two of the election judges I taught, stood up and used my name, saying I taught them differently.  I had no choice, had to stand up and give the lawyer the law regarding what he had said that was wrong.  I did it as nicely as I could.  The lawyer agreed he was wrong about that.

The lawyer in Florida asking for a recount is wrong, he needs to ask for an investigation, not a recount.  Not going to be a recount unless there is first an investigation and proven election fraud.   

[Oceander]

Delaying certification of the votes in states Trump won past the deadline (I believe that's Dec. 13) could mean the votes would not be included in the electoral college totals. No state won by Clinton is under a recount so timely certification of her electoral votes are not at risk --- making the ultimate goal of the recounts for her to win the EC with the total she won on Nov 8.

Maybe you should try reading the governing statutes before you overly dramatically

Title 3, sections 1 to 21, inclusive, provide procedures for counting electoral college votes.  Section 5 provides for a presumption of finality if a recount or dispute is resolved at least 6 days before the day the electors meet, that the certified electors are the properly appointed electors.  However, if that is not the case and there is still a live dispute, then section 15 provides a mechanism whereby the Congress decides who the proper electors are, and then their votes are counted. 

Basically, as I read it, if a state cannot avail itself of the safe-harbor in section 5, and if there are still disputes over the true electors for the state, then Congress makes that determination.  In other words, if these contests go past Dec. 13, then Florida and the other states will still have electoral votes to cast, but the electors who will do the casting will be determined by Congress.  I'm not sure if the democrats really want to go there. 

[Oceander]

@jpsb
@Oceander
@mystery-ak

Remember the recount rule/law, which is an AUTOMATIC recount is paid for by the state if the vote count of the two candidates is close enough within certain parameters to trigger one.   If an automatic recount is not triggered but a candidate wants a recount, the CANDIDATE has to pay for it.  This is not the present problem in Florida.  Read below:

What is happening here, it appears, is voters, not candidates, wanting a recount due to supposed hacking, whatever of paper ballots (I'll write about paper ballots later today).  These people and their lawyer are nuts.  They can't ask for a recount - they have to go to their local District Attorney, or their State Attorney General, and ask for an investigation - not a recount.  Voter fraud would have to be proved and then the Secretary of State would order the recount as every Secretary of State in every state is in charge of elections.

An addendum:  Here is the reason the lawyer involved here doesn't know what he is doing.  When I taught election law, lawyers would come to it to learn election law.  Why did they not know it before?  Because you can't make a living from knowing election law.  They were experts in their fields of law but not election law.  These lawyers were going to run for various judgeships somewhere in the state and now wanted to know what the law was regarding elections. 

I had to publicly correct a Texas lawyer who was making a speech in a large auditorium.  I never would have done that except I had just finished teaching a large part of that audience who were election judges/clerks.  When the lawyer made a big mistake regarding the conduct of county elections, two of the election judges I taught, stood up and used my name, saying I taught them differently.  I had no choice, had to stand up and give the lawyer the law regarding what he had said that was wrong.  I did it as nicely as I could.  The lawyer agreed he was wrong about that.

The lawyer in Florida asking for a recount is wrong, he needs to ask for an investigation, not a recount.  Not going to be a recount unless there is first an investigation and proven election fraud.   

Thank you for the lesson!   I very much appreciate your learning and your experience. 

[Wingnut]

Thank you for the lesson!   I very much appreciate your learning and your experience.

What he said V-33
 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@jpsb
@Oceander
@mystery-ak

Remember the recount rule/law, which is an AUTOMATIC recount is paid for by the state if the vote count of the two candidates is close enough within certain parameters to trigger one.   If an automatic recount is not triggered but a candidate wants a recount, the CANDIDATE has to pay for it.  This is not the present problem in Florida.  Read below:

What is happening here, it appears, is voters, not candidates, wanting a recount due to supposed hacking, whatever of paper ballots (I'll write about paper ballots later today).  These people and their lawyer are nuts.  They can't ask for a recount - they have to go to their local District Attorney, or their State Attorney General, and ask for an investigation - not a recount.  Voter fraud would have to be proved and then the Secretary of State would order the recount as every Secretary of State in every state is in charge of elections.

An addendum:  Here is the reason the lawyer involved here doesn't know what he is doing.  When I taught election law, lawyers would come to it to learn election law.  Why did they not know it before?  Because you can't make a living from knowing election law.  They were experts in their fields of law but not election law.  These lawyers were going to run for various judgeships somewhere in the state and now wanted to know what the law was regarding elections. 

I had to publicly correct a Texas lawyer who was making a speech in a large auditorium.  I never would have done that except I had just finished teaching a large part of that audience who were election judges/clerks.  When the lawyer made a big mistake regarding the conduct of county elections, two of the election judges I taught, stood up and used my name, saying I taught them differently.  I had no choice, had to stand up and give the lawyer the law regarding what he had said that was wrong.  I did it as nicely as I could.  The lawyer agreed he was wrong about that.

The lawyer in Florida asking for a recount is wrong, he needs to ask for an investigation, not a recount.  Not going to be a recount unless there is first an investigation and proven election fraud.

Sweet, so I can demand a recount here in MA and gum the whole process up here? Sounds fun! Where do I start?

[libertybele]

@jpsb
@Oceander
@mystery-ak

Remember the recount rule/law, which is an AUTOMATIC recount is paid for by the state if the vote count of the two candidates is close enough within certain parameters to trigger one.   If an automatic recount is not triggered but a candidate wants a recount, the CANDIDATE has to pay for it.  This is not the present problem in Florida.  Read below:

What is happening here, it appears, is voters, not candidates, wanting a recount due to supposed hacking, whatever of paper ballots (I'll write about paper ballots later today).  These people and their lawyer are nuts.  They can't ask for a recount - they have to go to their local District Attorney, or their State Attorney General, and ask for an investigation - not a recount.  Voter fraud would have to be proved and then the Secretary of State would order the recount as every Secretary of State in every state is in charge of elections.

An addendum:  Here is the reason the lawyer involved here doesn't know what he is doing.  When I taught election law, lawyers would come to it to learn election law.  Why did they not know it before?  Because you can't make a living from knowing election law.  They were experts in their fields of law but not election law.  These lawyers were going to run for various judgeships somewhere in the state and now wanted to know what the law was regarding elections. 

I had to publicly correct a Texas lawyer who was making a speech in a large auditorium.  I never would have done that except I had just finished teaching a large part of that audience who were election judges/clerks.  When the lawyer made a big mistake regarding the conduct of county elections, two of the election judges I taught, stood up and used my name, saying I taught them differently.  I had no choice, had to stand up and give the lawyer the law regarding what he had said that was wrong.  I did it as nicely as I could.  The lawyer agreed he was wrong about that.

The lawyer in Florida asking for a recount is wrong, he needs to ask for an investigation, not a recount.  Not going to be a recount unless there is first an investigation and proven election fraud.

??? I don't recall Stein being able to prove that there has been any election fraud.  Nothing was proven. Her claim of hacking was determined to be ridiculous because voting machines aren't connected to the internet.  Maybe I missed something, but where and when did Stein prove that there was indeed election fraud for a recount to move forward?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

??? I don't recall Stein being able to prove that there has been any election fraud.  Nothing was proven. Her claim of hacking was determined to be ridiculous because voting machines aren't connected to the internet.  Maybe I missed something, but where and when did Stein prove that there was indeed election fraud for a recount to move forward?

Why would she have to claim anything? The President-elect said 3 million people voted illegally. So why wouldn't the recount go forward if even Trump says their is fraud?

[Victoria33]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Yes, you could do this but first you must have a valid reason to suspect voter fraud, then go to your local District Attorney and present your evidence of voter fraud.  If the District Attorney is convinced your evidence is valid, he will do an investigation.  If you have no evidence, you are wasting your time perusing this.

[Victoria33]

[quote author=Weird Tolkienish Figure
Why would she have to claim anything? The President-elect said 3 million people voted illegally. So why wouldn't the recount go forward if even Trump says their is fraud?
[/quote]
@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Never believe anything Trump says.  His claiming voter fraud has as much validity as his saying Cruz's father helped killed John Kennedy.

[Cyber Liberty]

The plan is to prevent Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida from voting in the electoral college and then presto Hillary is elected President of the United States.

Uh, no.  The Constitution specifically states a majority of the electors appointed, not a majority of existing electoral votes.  If Hillary succeeds in getting the Electors from the three states thrown out, then the necessary number of votes drops from 270 to somewhere just north of 250.  Trump still wins.

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 3. 

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed...

[ScottinVA]

Well.. if they want a recount, here's how it should happen:  Require them to front $40 million into an escrow, enabling the state to draw from it as needed to defray all expenses involved.  At the end of the process, the plaintiffs would receive back the balance.  Failing that... no go.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Maybe you should try reading the governing statutes before you overly dramatically  

Maybe you should try calming down.  There was nothing overly dramatic or dramatic at all in my reply to you.

Really .. stop looking for a fight.

[Oceander]

Uh, no.  The Constitution specifically states a majority of the electors appointed, not a majority of existing electoral votes.  If Hillary succeeds in getting the Electors from the three states thrown out, then the necessary number of votes drops from 270 to somewhere just north of 250.  Trump still wins.

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 3. 

[Oceander]

Maybe you should try calming down.  There was nothing overly dramatic or dramatic at all in my reply to you.

Really .. stop looking for a fight.

Uh-huh. 

[RetBobbyMI]

Delaying certification of the votes in states Trump won past the deadline (I believe that's Dec. 13) could mean the votes would not be included in the electoral college totals. No state won by Clinton is under a recount so timely certification of her electoral votes are not at risk --- making the ultimate goal of the recounts for her to win the EC with the total she won on Nov 8.

Michigan already certified the vote. The recount is after that fact.

[jpsb]

Thank you for the lesson!   I very much appreciate your learning and your experience.

@Victoria33 @Oceander

I thought each state determined its' own election laws. So what is true in Texas might not be true in Florida. I know there are some federal laws such as age and citizenship, but aren't most of the regulations determined at the state level?