| Subject: news of the day 11/23/04 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 11/23/2004, 7:47 AM |
| To: election-law |
See this
news
from Wisconsin. A snippet: "But some municipal and county clerks aren't
laughing about ballots with "Goofy" write-ins. Each write-in vote must
be recorded on a form, which takes time away from other duties on
election night, said Janice Dunn, administrator for the Milwaukee
County Election Commission." Thanks to How
Appealing for the pointer.
Political Wire has this
post,
which begins: "Control of Montana's House of Representatives has
apparently come down to two votes in one legislative district,
according to the Billings
Gazette."
A.P. offers this
report
from North Carolina. A snippet: "The Carteret County voting failure has
brought a lot of hand wringing to elections officials and
"I-told-you-sos" from activists who sounded the alarm about electronic
balloting months ago. A touch-screen voting network there failed to
record more than 4,400 votes cast before Election Day because its data
storage was full - the result of outdated software and poor
communication between the California company that made the machine and
county officials."
Patrick Basham and John Samples offer these thoughts at
the CATO website.
The Union Tribune article is here. The Los Angeles Times article is here. The Union-Tribune story indicates that the judge stated he was bound by the only appellate authority on point, Fair v. Hernandez, 116 Cal.App.3d 868 (1981). In that case, a court refused to count four write-in votes for a candidate where the candidate's name was written on a punch card, rather than on the correct space on the write-in ballot. The Fair court had concluded: "In each of these four instances the will of the voters was evident and the trial court so found. (Findings 36-39.) But it is not enough to find out generally the voter's will, such will must be expressed in the manner prescribed by law. (McFarland v. Spengler (1926) 199 Cal. 147, 152 [248 P. 521].)"
An appeal is possible, and it would go to a different appellate court than the court that decided Fair, meaning that court would not be bound by the Fair decision. Fair is also distinguishable on grounds that the Fair court held the instructions for casting a write-in vote were clear, whereas the League has argued in the trial court and could argue on appeal that they were not, at least as to absentee voters. The news stories indicate that a decision on an appeal by the League has not been made.-- Rick Hasen Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow Loyola Law School 919 South Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org