A bit more detail re 3 USC 5 from Dan Lowenstein

[Volokh, Eugene]

> -----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.
>
        . . .

>                Best,
>
>                Daniel H. Lowenstein
>                UCLA Law School
>                310-825-5148
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20001213/1aed36dd/attachment.htm