Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Politics

Democrats Hire Army of Lawyers for Elections 108

Posted by pudge from the yeah-right-if dept.
Neil Blender writes in that the Democrats are hiring tens of thousands of lawyers to contest election results. This is nothing new, except for the apparent magnitude of it, and it gives the idea of tort reform a whole new meaning. The Republican party is relying on state parties to hire the lawyers, if necessary.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Hire Army of Lawyers for Elections More

Democrats Hire Army of Lawyers for Elections

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @10:22PM (#10466676)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Democrats Create 10,000 New Jobs

    They really couldn't say that though, because these are just changes in assignment. After all, with the SCO suits winding down, Boies' firm had to do something with their junior attorneys. $31M only goes so far.

  • Perhaps misleading? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lskziq ( 778173 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @10:55PM (#10466887) Homepage
    The article tells us the democrats "plan to mobilize tens of thousands of lawyers on Election Day." However, the post suggests that their behavior is largely unmatched by the republicans (perhaps I am misinterpreting the poster).

    I'm not sure of the implications, but the final paragraph tells us the Bush campaign has $6 million in their legal fund while the Kerry has $4.6 (as of the end of august). I suppose it's unclear whether that's a result of expenditures Kerry has already made or if it indicates the Bush campaign's willingness to engage in similar tactics.

    Regardless, I think I agree with the spirit of the poster. This is depressing. Is it better for there to be fierce litigation, proving the affair to be the horse and pony show it is, or for one of these rather lackluster candidates to win a definitive victory?

    Do you know your candidates? At least go to http://www.vote-smart.org/ [vote-smart.org] and learn their names.

    • The point was the hiring of the lawyers. I suppose I probably should have mentioned the legal funds too, but didn't think of it. I'll give you a +1 Informative to make up for it. :-)
    • Is it better for there to be fierce litigation, proving the affair to be the horse and pony show it is...

      Just out of curiosity, how does the rabid interest of so many prove this to be merely a farce? Now, maybe it is, but I'm not sure how you're getting that impression from the dems (and republicans) passion...


    • > The article tells us the democrats "plan to mobilize tens of thousands of lawyers on Election Day."

      You'd think they'd try a simpler solution first, such as nominating a candidate that more than half the public would prefer over Bush.

    • The article says Democrats are mobilizing and "lining up" lawyers, but doesn't say anything about hiring them. It does say that they're training thousands of volunteers. That would explain why Kerry is expecting more bang for the buck.

      Also, I believe the plan is for the volunteer attorneys to intervene or document instances where people are excluded from the polls. Democrats believe that more voters at the polls will favor them (that's the conventional wisdom [go.com]). Assuming Repulicans also believe this, t

    • According to this article [chicagotribune.com] (bugmenot l/p required):

      COLUMBUS, Ohio -- In a cramped corner of the state Democratic Party headquarters here, David Sullivan and seven other full-time volunteers are frantically dialing lawyers to ask them to monitor Election Day polling places.

      . . .

      Republicans, meanwhile, are placing lawyers on call in battleground states, where coveted electoral votes could, theoretically, be determined by which side is best prepared to prove that voters have or have not been disenfran

      • > But it's here in Ohio that experts believe there is the greatest potential
        > for another Florida, primarily because more than two-thirds of voters will
        > use punch-card ballots similar to those that produced the infamous hanging
        > chads of 2000.

        We've used those punch-card ballots since time out of mind in Ohio, and we've
        never had any problem with them. Apparently, most folks in Ohio know how to
        follow an arrow; whereas, as a certain comedian pointed out, the driving in
        Miami proves that voters th
  • How do I sign up?

  • Great. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2004 @11:26PM (#10467090)
    That's tens of thousands of lawyers who are now too preoccupied to mess up other things.

  • Republican Party may Schism check this out! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @12:23AM (#10467343) Homepage Journal
    Republican Bob Barr (of all people) just wrote this article [creativeloafing.com] here is the last couple of paragraphs :

    Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.

    History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do. Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?

    If someone like bob barr endorses Badnarik, this could get REALLY interesting.

    • Naa, there is an ourside chance that conservatives could cost bush the election this year (like they did his father in 1992. But all that will do is pull them back in when Kerry starts trying to push a very liberal agenda. Both parties have been on the verge of splittion for almost four years.

      On the republican side you have Bush doing everything he can to piss off conservatives, and on the Democrat side the only thing you have is 'he's not Bush'... Not really a solid base for either party..

    • If someone like bob barr endorses Badnarik, this could get REALLY interesting.

      I suspect that would be the end of the Libertarians...

      Bob Barr is an asshole who paid for his (ex?)wives abortions and then ran on a Pro-Life platform. A known adulterer who called for the head of President Clinton when he was accused of such things.

      Oh, could go on but I realized Bob Barr is not worth it.
      • If the LP is sucessfull, there will come a point of critical mass when a large group of people suddenly join the party. Unfortunately, they will share SOME but not ALL of the LP views. I think the question is, can we accomodate the growth without sacrificing our principles? I agree with you on Bob Barr. His record is deplorable. However you realize this is politics right? I know there are a number of Libertarian leaning people in congress, Ron Paul comes to mind. If we could get one person to endorse MB,
      • Bob Barr also blocked the Washington D.C. medical marijuana initiative. The voters of D.C. had a referendum on whether medical marijuana should be legalized. Congress, thanks to Bob Barr, blocked the counting of the vote.

        Yes, in a democracy, our representatives are out there making sure our vote doesn't count. The city estimated that it only cost a few dollars to tabulate the votes, since it was electronic tabulation, but they could not get the authority to do so until the ACLU sued. Finally the votes

        • I was going to bring that up but couldn't think of the details.

          Now that I think about it the citizens of D.C. voted it on in. But since there is a congressional committee that controls the legislature of D.C. they had the final say. He basically vetoed the idea with one gavel drop.
          • Exactly. And he's not even a D.C.-elected official.
            If you live in D.C., your vote only counts becuase they let it. That is not democracy. And the "D.C. is not really a state" argument grows tiresome too. It's a legal neutral zone like Guantanamo.............

  • Yawn... reruns. (Score:3, Funny)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @01:54AM (#10467674) Homepage
    Remember, last time Al Gore had the army of lawyers, and Bush had a premature declaration of victory [wsws.org] from Fox News.

    Guess who won.
    • Sorry, but that is not true. Fox news DID NOT prematurely declare Bush the winner in Florida, it did so after several other networks did.

      Don't believe anything michael moore said, he's a liar and that movie you saw was full of lies. I honestly can't even believe that you believe something that has been proven false countless times already.
      • You could back your statement up with facts. Simply provide a list of which networks called Florida for Bush, and at what times.

        According to the article I cited, the decision by FOX News to call the election for Bush was made by Bush's cousin, Dale Ellis. It was done at precisely a time when Bush's lead was shrinking rapidly. In fact, the lead evaporated in the few minutes between the time Gore's campaign announced that he would give a concession speech and the time Gore was scheduled to actually gi
        • You're basing your facts on a "World Socialist Web Site" article containing no references?

          Simply provide a list of which networks called Florida for Bush, and at what times.

          That's something you should do. As the accuser, it's your responsibility to prove your claim. So you provide us with the times each network called for Florida.
        • At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)

          In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.

          Please note

    • Would it matter (Score:3, Interesting)

      by phyruxus ( 72649 )
      how many lawyers they hire? During the florida court case about the ballot shenanigans, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that figuring out who did what and how many votes were for who was not permissible because it would "damage the legitimacy of the Bush presidency".

      We (the US) don't need lawyers, we need UN monitors, and we've got those. Of course it wouldn't hurt if the media would hold off reporting a winner until there actually is one; the "gentlemanly" thing to do would be to stop depending o

    • Remember, last time Al Gore had the army of lawyers, and Bush had a premature declaration of victory from Fox News.
      Who had the premature declaration of victory from NBC, CBS and ABC?

  • Still less than the Republicans. (Score:4, Informative)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Friday October 08, 2004 @02:22AM (#10467788) Journal
    To quote the bottom of the article:
    Kerry had about $4.6 million in his legal fund at the end of August, and Bush had about $6 million, commission reports show
    • Kerry isn't the one hiring the lawyers. It's the DNC. How much money do THEY have?
    • Let me direct your attention to a long article [theatlantic.com] in the Atlantic. Oops, it seems to have become subscriber only; here are some large excerpts. [google.com] This [google.com] looks like the full text.

      Let me quote a few paragraphs:

      But the 2000 election was not Rove's closest race. That had come earlier, and serves as a greater testament to his skill. In 1994 a group called the Business Council of Alabama appealed to Rove to help run a slate of Republican candidates for the state supreme court. ...

      Newspaper coverage on Novem

  • If EACH and EVERY one of us (EVERYONE nationwide) would just do their duty to Country and Nation by killing 10 lawyers apiece, we might bring teir numbers back under control and end this pestilence!
  • An army of lawyers.

    Hey, if you hire tens of thousands of lawyers, that becomes a veritable "army", you say? Hrm. While we suffer from an excess of lawyers in this country, we need to send tens of thousands of more personnel to Iraq in order to win...

    Could it be that the Democrats have a secret plan for how to win the war?

  • Not rocket science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @07:18AM (#10468615) Homepage
    From the article:

    So they have decided this year to fight legal skirmishes across the country, hoping to change state election rules that make it more difficult for voters to cast ballots. In New Mexico, for instance, the Democrats argued against a rule that would have required new voters to show IDs at the polls, which they said would disproportionately affect minority voters. The state Supreme Court ruled last week in favor of the Democrats.
    This is a great example of the contradiction and hypocracy where people want each vote to be counted, verified, and validated, but they are unwilling to put into place a mechanism that properly validates the voter. There are plenty of ways to legally identify yourself, and if you don't take the time to obtain and provide the proper identification, you deserve the consequenses for your lack of responsibility. This is not rocket science.

    Much of the Democratic litigation centers on how various states are interpreting a new provision in the federal voting law that gives voters who believe they are registered -- but whose names don't appear on voter rolls -- the right to cast so-called provisional ballots.
    WTF. You have had four years since the last election to register. You have had four years of multiple state and local elections and primaries to go and verify that you are properly registered. If you decide not to be involved in the process, then don't expect the process to involve you.

    The real problem is gradual the removal of personal responsibility from the process through poltically correct and partisan legislation that is killing a process that should not be rocket science.
    • Wonderful post, voting is no longer being treated as a right, its being treated as a job... If an election does not go youre way there has to be massive cheating, if it goes your way then you obviously cheated.

      in 1996 Both parties decided to exclude Perot from the debates, in 2000 it was nader. Now the democrats have went even further than keeping Nader out of the debates, they are actively trynig to kick him off the ballot all together! I think that not requireing ID is amazingly stupid, given massive fr

      • If an election does not go youre way there has to be massive cheating, if it goes your way then you obviously cheated.

        Oh man, you're right.

        I recall thinking after the 2000 election that some serious damage had been done to the nations credibility, but it never occurred to me that things would get this bad...
    • Much of the Democratic litigation centers on how various states are interpreting a new provision in the federal voting law that gives voters who believe they are registered -- but whose names don't appear on voter rolls -- the right to cast so-called provisional ballots.

      WTF. You have had four years since the last election to register. You have had four years of multiple state and local elections and primaries to go and verify that you are properly registered. If you decide not to be involved in the process

  • This is all about "laying the groundwork" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @09:49AM (#10469530) Homepage Journal
    Just as having someone "Monitor" the elections. The Democrat party is attempting to setup escape routes should the election be close and they are on the losing end. They are implying that any close election they lose is fradulent. They are even go so far as saying any election they don't win is fraudulent.

    Combined with the ever famous use of the race card (Kerry's little speech recently promising that they will NOT allow millions of African Americans from being "disenfranchised" AGAIN") it only shows how low the political parties are willing to go.

    If you live in a battleground state I fully expect you to see more local evidence of "election protetection" squads and such. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is a form of intimidation. It also is an insult to the many public election officials who do a great and THANKLESS job. Remember, 19 out of 20 counties in Florida with voting issues were adminstered by Democrats and the last by an independant. How would you feel if your party was making you out to be a buffoon?

    There is just too much money in politics. Political parties are the worst incarnation of a corporation ever seen. Worse they are funded by our money.

    I wonder if there will ever be an election where 10% of the House turns over.
  • Bush has hired judges. That wins every time.
  • I understand Britain's Silly Party, if their election monitoring team manages to show up, might outdo even the Democrats for associating themselves with dispised people as an election tactic. None of this namby-pamby shilly-shally halfway effort by creating an army of lawers (slightly annoying) when real irritants such as used car salesmen (very annoying) and telemarketers (extremely annoying) can be marshalled to dispute the election results.

  • The article states:

    The Republican party is relying on state parties to hire the lawyers, if necessary.

    This is a blatant lie. Only a few days ago, my wife recieved the following email from BC04 (lord knows why she's on their mailing list, but she is):


    From: "Tom Josefiak" [BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com]
    To: [MrsVR]
    Subject: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Recount

    Dear [MrsVR],

    You have probably never heard my name. I'm one of many people who work tirelessly behind the scenes on behalf of the

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close