District Judge Rules He Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction To Hear HD 105 Recount
By Vince Leibowitz on Nov 26, 2008 in Uncategorized ![[Post to Twitter]](/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Tweet This Post 
State District Judge Jim Jordan ruled this week that he doesn’t have the jurisdiction to resolve legal issues related to conducting a recount in the House District 105 race this week, meaning that a recount will begin December 1 unless the Texas Democratic Party appeals the case to a higher court.
Here is why Jordan declined to rule on the case:
“I was looking forward to this case,” Judge Jordan said in ruling that only an appellate or the state Supreme Court has jurisdiction. “It has some interesting issues I would have enjoyed working with. And it has issues that need dealing with.”
Judge Jordan issued his jurisdictional ruling after hearing all the evidence and testimony in the case that centers around two hot-button election issues — straight-party voting and electronic voting machines.
I would tend to agree, actually, but I’d go one step farther than Judge Jordan did. I’m not sure that this is an issue for the state courts at all. I’d actually say that Bush v. Gore applies here. albeit in microcosm.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the method of recounting ballots in Florida in 2000 was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To me, applying different standards to electronically cast ballots and paper ballots doesn’t provide “equal protection” to the voters–or the candidates. The candidates are forced to deal with different standards for two different types of ballots. The very nature of the fact that this has to come in to play could create a myriad of difficulties. Of course, the courts may not agree with that because it could ultimately mean the death of electronic voting (at least, so long as absentee and provisional ballots are cast on paper).
Tweet This Post ![[Post to Ping.fm]](/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-ping.png){kind=icon}
Ping This Post
[...] Vince at Capitol Annex notes that a state district judge has ruled that he does not have jurisdiction to rule on a case related to the…. [...]
[...] Vince at Capitol Annex notes that a state district judge has ruled that he does not have jurisdiction to rule on a case related to the…. [...]
[...] Vince at Capitol Annex notes that a state district judge has ruled that he does not have jurisdiction to rule on a case related to the…. [...]