{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2000-12-15-pt1-PgE2195", "2000-12-15", 106, 2, null, null, "U.S. SUPREME COURT PREVENTED JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN THE ELECTION", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E2195", "E2195", "[{\"name\": \"John Edward Porter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "146 Cong. Rec. E2195", "Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E2195]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n   U.S. SUPREME COURT PREVENTED JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN THE ELECTION\n\n                                 ______\n\n                        HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER\n\n                              of illinois\n\n                    in the house of representatives\n\n                       Friday, December 15, 2000\n\n  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was\nconsistent with common sense and the need to bring finality to a\nprocess which, in my judgment, should never have started. By that, I\nmean the judicial involvement in the election decision.\n  Before the onset of technology, in the distant past when paper\nballots were used in elections, the standards for a valid vote were\nclear and universally observed. To vote, you placed an ``X'' in the box\nby the candidate's name. If you used a check mark or other mark or\nplaced your ``X'' outside of the box, your vote for that office was\ninvalid and, in the absence of fraud, was not counted.\n  Voting machines were meant to speed the process of voting and\ncounting the votes cast. But they also have standards. If you do not\npunch the card in the manner specified, indicating your intended vote,\nthe machine will not count it. If you can't understand the instructions\nor make a mistake as you vote, you can ask for help or a new ballot.\nThe machine is impartial. It counts all properly cast votes. It does\nnot count those not properly cast, nor should it. Unless there is a\nchallenge to the workings of the machine in counting the vote, or other\nirregularity or fraud alleged, the count of the voting machine should\nbe the certified or final count in the election.\n  The judicial challenges in Florida by the Gore campaign were based\nprincipally upon the cards that the machine did not count. The Gore\ncontention was not that the machines did not count correctly, but that\nvotes not properly cast by the voter should be counted by hand--somehow\nby having county election officials divine the voters' intentions. It\nis fascinating that the standards to do this were never established in\ntwo decisions by the Florida Supreme Court. Telling county election\nofficials simply to use their best judgment was clearly\nunconstitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled, since it\nviolates the equal protection clause. It is also plainly an open\ninvitation to manipulation of the results and fraud.\n  Fortunately, this episode will result in introducing new technologies\nfor voting designed to foreclose any attempt to go outside the machine\nresult in future elections. Once again, perhaps, technology will save\nus from ourselves. But let's leave this difficult process with several\nclear understandings. First, votes have to meet some minimum standard\nand voters have to take the responsibility for their own actions. More\nthan two hundred years ago our new country placed its future on the\njudgment of individual people, not dictators or kings. But with rights\ncome responsibilities. One is to meet minimum standard of preparation\nand execution to cast a valid vote.\n  Second, we should have learned that the judiciary, in the absence of\nalleged fraud, should not intervene in the political process. For most\nof our history this has been an unstated part of the separation of\npowers. The first decision of the Florida Supreme Court should have\nupheld the Secretary of State's certification. Unfortunately, their\ndesire to intervene in the absence of alleged fraud necessitated not\none but two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is instructive that the\ncourt in Washington did not itself intervene but prevented the Florida\ncourt from doing so.\n  Finally, it is a testament to the founders of this great Republic\nthat all of us are sufficiently imbued with the rule of law that we sat\npatiently through this long process and believed that it would be\nresolved as fairly as is humanly possible within that rule. We did not\ntake to the streets, take the law into our own hands, or threaten to\noverthrow our system. It is not perfect, and we are not perfect, but we\nknow it is the best system that humankind has ever devised.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2000-12-15-pt1-PgE2195"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.8096711244434118, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}