A bit more detail re 3 USC 5 from Dan Lowenstein
VOLOKH at mail.law.ucla.edu
Wed Dec 13 00:15:39 PST 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lowenstein, Daniel [SMTP:lowenste at mail.law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 10:59 PM
> To: 'election-law at chicagokent.kentlaw.edu'
> Subject: RE: opinion attached
> [The Court] correctly decided the case on the Florida Supreme
> Court's interpretation of state law. Somehow, during the last week, every
> talking head seems to have agreed that the December 12 deadline was
> illusory, a creation of the media. By the weekend, cable news anchors
> were reporting that as an accepted fact.
> One of the reasons it was wrong because the Florida Supreme Court
> in its decision last Friday intimated that compliance with the December 12
> deadline was intended by the Florida statutes. The court said that in
> interpreting the Florida statutes it was "cognizant" of the federal safe
> harbor provision that established the deadline. In footnote 21 the court
> referred to the dissenters argument that the new recount was futile
> because it could not be completed by the deadline. The dissents were
> explicit that the deadline they were talking about was December 12. The
> majority did not respond that the dissenters were wrong about that
> deadline, but instead acknowledged that the election result might be
> determined by practical problems but going forward was worth the effort.
. . .
> Daniel H. Lowenstein
> UCLA Law School
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof