Subject: RE: en banc decision
From: "Even, Jeff (ATG)" <JeffE@atg.wa.gov>
Date: 9/23/2003, 4:27 PM
To: "'Karl Manheim'" <Karl.Manheim@lls.edu>, "J. J. Gass" <jj.gass@nyu.edu>
CC: election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu

There is a California Supreme Court decision on point.  See Gooch v.
Hendrix, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 712 (Ca. 1993).  I say that from memory, though,
without reviewing the case.

Jeff Even
Assistant Attorney General
Solicitor General's Team
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
voice: (360) 586-0728
fax: (360) 664-2963
jeffe@atg.wa.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Manheim [mailto:Karl.Manheim@lls.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:56 AM
To: J. J. Gass
Cc: election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: en banc decision


Wouldn't it also be "speculative" after a close election that enough 
of the residual votes would have gone to the losing side to 
"influence the result of the election"?  Even if the vote margin is 
less than the number of residual votes.

In other words, if proof (or even likelihood) of different outcome is 
the standard for a remedy in election EP violations, how do 
plaintiffs ever win?



Karl Manheim
Loyola Law School
919 S. Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
Tel:   213-736-1106
Fax:   240-414-7747
Web:   http://faculty.lls.edu/manheim

The contents of this email and attachments 
may be confidential, copyrighted and/or 
protected by the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ¤  2510, et seq.