http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._us/ohio_vote_2

Judge Denies Demand for Ohio Recount

18 minutes ago

TOLEDO, Ohio - A federal judge on Tuesday denied a request by third-party presidential candidates who wanted to force a recount of Ohio ballots even before the official count was finished.

Judge James G. Carr in Toledo ruled that the candidates have a right under Ohio law to a recount, but said it can wait. The judge wrote that he saw no reason to interfere with the final stages of Ohio's electoral process. Officials have said the results will be certified by Dec. 6.

The lawsuit by Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik had asked Carr to issue an order requiring Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to immediately begin statewide recount of Nov. 2 voting results.

The candidates received a combined 0.26 percent of the vote in unofficial results. But they contend a recount is necessary to ensure accuracy.

President Bush (news - web sites) led Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) by 136,000 votes in the unofficial count, and Kerry conceded that there were not enough provisional ballots to change the outcome. But Kerry supporters have made numerous claims of voting irregularities in Ohio.

The two candidates have said they raised more than $150,000 to cover the state's fee for a recount. Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct, or $113,600 statewide, but election officials say the true expense would be far greater.

Ohio's law........ but a judge...... can just say "later"?

I will join whichever party makes this a rallying cry! Right now. The laws must change nationwide. How bad would the exit polls have to be before a judge would agree a recount was necessary?? What is THEIR line?

We are so utterly hopeless. Hope is dying.

OK, I am all for starting the recount now. I don't know why it would need to wait.

But, I also have to say that it honestly doesn't matter whether it starts today or in two weeks. The recount will still show the same results either way and the outcome will still be the same.

What would be the purpose of wasting a lot of time and money to fight to get it started early?

Is this the same guy?

http://home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70/carr.htm

The law in Ohio states Dec 3rd why is it being quoted everywhere 6th or 7th?

Your all for "starting it now" but..."what is the purpose of wasting a lot of time and money to fight to get it early"??? Talk about an ambiguous post.

WHAT are you trying to say, other than "the recount will show the same results either way and the outcome will still be the same."

You have NO evidence to PROVE that this red shift occured legitimately. With thousands upon thousands of reports of voter irregularities, the scales are not tipped in favor of a clean election. FACT CHECK.

The burden of proof is on those who deny that fraud occured. They must PROVE that all of these irregularities are not of substance and that this election was fair. As of today, the evidence all points to the accusation that fraud did occur.

I agree with you, the only way to get a true recount would be to have the whole state of Ohio revote, on cards so the cheats can't commit treason. I'm glad that I found someone that can see this as clearly as I can. If several fraudulent acts are proven, won’t that discredit the entire states election return? Can other states force a re-vote? Remember the few people that are cheating are actually walking a borderline of an act of treason to this country. I think its time that "the people" start voting in a manner that eliminates any doubt.

target='_blank'>


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...t=0&#entry56198

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...re_us/ohio_vote

Judge Denies Demand for Ohio Recount

"President Bush (news - web sites) led Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) by 136,000 votes in the unofficial count, and Kerry conceded that there were not enough provisional ballots to change the outcome. But Kerry supporters have made numerous claims of voting irregularities in Ohio."
..................
aaahhhh!

Keep in mind that this only means he denied the request that the recount start before the original count is completed.

The recount will still happen, just not as soon. I still don't understand the reason for the count not being completed yet, nor for it not being certified immediately when it is.

But, I also do not believe that there is any real problem with waiting until the count is certified.

Well, we covered the burden of proof thing on another thread.

And, it is not really ambiguous. I still hold to my statement that I do not understand why the recount could not start right away (well after the count is finished, no feet dragging, etc.).

But, at the same time, I don't understand what the rush is.

So, while I think the feet dragging thing is pretty stupid, I also don't think it is worth the stress, etc. to worry about it. The recount will happen in good time. The point is getting every vote counted, right? And not getting every vote counted by a certain date?

Re-votes *could* theoretically be allowed in some states, but the only times they have either been allowed or almost allowed were in very small, very local elections.

Many states have very solid laws that state the Presidential election occurs on one day every 4 years. Therefore, a re-vote in any of those states would be impossible.

I have not studied Ohio's law yet to see exactly what their elections laws say.

We can no longer allow these political terrorists to hijack the process and take away from us the right to have a fair and timely election. It is our Constitutional right to vote and have all of the votes counted. To deny even one citizen the right to vote is a serious crime.

Everyone, regardless of party affiliation has the right to vote!

What would it take to have them held accountable? The people?

OK. And who said they were not going to count the votes?

Ohio's Election Law must be consistent with federal Election Laws.

This decision must be appealed, and as part of the appeal, perhaps the judges reliance on the law should be questioned and measured against his personal opinion which is contrary to the law.

An injucntion should be sought requiring immediate relief on behalf of all of Ohio's voters from a Secretary of State who reads a deadline date on certification of the Ohio vote to mean that under no circumstances should the state move as quickly as can be in order to start the authorized recount.

there's more

http://forum.therandirhodesshow.com/index....=0&#entry266935

Even though I do support both a recount and a recount done as quickly as possible (meaning that the SoS should just certify right away), I can understand the judge's ruling and I don't think any higher court would overturn this on appeal.

The judge basically said that the parties bringing the suit faced no irreparable harm if the recount is not started immediately.

And, again, at the risk of sounding shizoid again: I don't understand why there is such a big push to get the recount started right now. I mean, I would like to see it start and be done with as quickly as possible, but if not, the important thing is that it is done at all (though, I am still of the belief of count all or count none)

Anyway, they cannot hold off the recount past Dec 6. If the result overturns the election, congress can reverse the electoral college decision on Jan 6.

Actually, I thought that Ohio's election must be certified by Dec 3. ???

And, please don't get any false hopes about Congress overturning anything.

OK, seriously, I am going to make another plea here for sanity:

Do you remember how you felt on Election night when you realized that Bush was going to be re-elected? Think hard about that exact feeling. Are you ready to re-live that on December 13th when the Electoral College casts its ballots for Bush? Are you ready to relive that on January 6th when Congress certifies those ballots for Bush? Are you ready to relive that on January 20th when Bush is inaugurated?

Ask yourself those questions and give that serious thought.

Now, even if, by some miracle, a recount in Ohio shows that Kerry won, be prepared for lawsuits filed by the Republicans even solely for the purpose of stalling. If the election is in doubt on Dec 13th, then either no electors, or both sets of electors will cast ballots. Then on Jan 6th, when Congress meets, two members, one from the House, one from the Senate will dispute the results. Then, according to the US Constitution, the House will select the President and the Senate will select the Vice-President.

Please, even if you want to hold onto hope, at least be realistic and hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

At least I am being honest. I suppose if I were a practicing psychologist or a therapist, I would tell everyone to hold onto those hopes.

If the seeker of relief in the form of an authorized recount is basing their requested recount on the fact that there have been serious and numerous irregularities in the Ohio vote and its tabulation, then who objectively can sate that the seeker of relief has no immediate interest in ensuring that all the votes be counted correctly prior to the casting of the electoral votes by the state of Ohio and those electoral votes being sent to Congress?

Just because the seeker disclosed that their purpose is not to overturn any counts as may have been already tallied, does not preclude the seeker of relief from having that exact action taken where it shall be deemed correct in the recounting of votes, and since there have been demonstrated and attested irregularities of such a magnitude and type that could feasibly cause a major change to the vote tally, as a result of computer tabulations and errors by humans involved in such tabulations, it would indeed be premature and partisan to dismiss the "time is of the essence" element of the relief sought as a foregone conclusion.

Your logic is quite illogical.

Because in THIS case, the "seeker of relief" as you call them are the third party candidates requesting the recount. They do not represent anyone but themselves in THIS case.

Therefore, there is NO risk of any irreparable harm to THEM in not starting the recount immediately.

You can say you don't agree with it, but you cannot say it is completely wrong. A judge has already ruled exactly this. Are all judges wrong when they rule in a manner you do not agree with?

Though they are political candidates and are seeking relief in that capacity, they are also citizens of Ohio and are also seeking relief in that capacity.

Though the recount is authorized, it met no litmus test requiring that it prove that the results of the election tallies in Ohio are wrong as a condition of its authorization, but instead that it met the test of the burden of evidence that the irregularities with the votes needed to be verified and corrected.

You are diferentiating to the point of cutting out all of Ohio in the matter of the law at hand, yet the law exists on behalf of all of Ohio.

Your interpretation is quite plausible as an explanation of the judges decision, but more aptly describes the judges placing the interest of all Ohio to the rear of the interest of this judge's PERCEPTION of the law.

The judge, if he has applied your logic, has ignored the very precepts of the law on which he decided by asserting that the interest of all of Ohio in the matter are not tied to the interest of the seekers of relief.

This is a quite radical and semantical approach to the law.