Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/29/10
From: "Goldfeder, Jerry H." <jgoldfeder@stroock.com>
Date: 11/29/2010, 9:37 AM
To: 'Rick Hasen' <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>, EDWARD FOLEY <foley.33@osu.edu>
CC: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

I remember it the same way.  Please confirm!

 

Jerry H. Goldfeder

Special Counsel

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

180 Maiden Lane

New York, NY 10038

212-806-5857   (office)

917-680-3132   (cell)

212-806-7857   (fax)

www.stroock.com/goldfeder

 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:28 PM
To: EDWARD FOLEY
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/29/10

 

Not only is Toobin wrong on that; he also states "(Recounts of the ballots by media organizations produced ambiguous results; they suggest that Gore would have won a full statewide recount and Bush would have won the limited recount initially sought by the Gore forces.)"
The phrase "full statewide recount" referred to a recount of both overvotes and undervotes, something Gore did not ask for and the court did not order.


On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, EDWARD FOLEY wrote:

One quick factual question about the Toobin piece that Rick links to.  Toobin says that the "the Florida courts, interpreting Florida election law, [ordered] a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes; that is, ballots that indicated no Presidential preference or more than one."  My memory is different: the Florida Supreme Court's 4-3 decision ordered only a statewide recount of undervotes, not overvotes, and that was a basis of concern in both Justice Wells' dissent at the state level, as well as mentioned as a potential factor in the U.S. Supreme Court's Equal Protection analysis. 

I'm not currently in a position to go back and either confirm or refute my memory on this.  I'm wondering if any list members is in a position to easily and quickly do so.

Thanks very much, Ned



----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Hasen <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>
Date: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:00 pm
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/29/10
To: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

>
>


>
>
>
>
>


>

November 29, 2010


>


>


>


>

-- 
> Rick Hasen
> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School
> 919 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


>
>
>


>
>
>


>


> > _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
>
> --
> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 1120492727) is spam:
> Spam:       
> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=1120492727&m=fa5737abc67f&c=sNot spam:    https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=1120492727&m=fa5737abc67f&c=n
> Forget vote:
> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=1120492727&m=fa5737abc67f&c=f---
> ---------------------------------------------------
> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>



-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 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


IRS Circular 230
Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachment that does not explicitly state otherwise) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.