Joe writes:

> Not withstanding the tangents, I read Boortz's intend with the article was
to
> agree with the court ruling.
>
>  "If there is, as I believe there is, a greater chance that punch-card
> ballots are going to be thrown out, then that would mean that there is a
> greater chance that people who vote in these six urban California counties
> are not going to have their vote thrown out.  It boils down to equal
> protection ... equal treatment under the law.  A voter using a punch-card
> ballot has every right to expect their vote to count as much as someone
using
> a touch-screen.  The blunt truth is that this does not seem to be the way
> things will work out."

And that's the essence of the equal protection argument. If everyone had an
equal chance of their ballot being invalidated -- as it was during the last
election -- that's fair treatment under the law. But the current condition has
been argued to not be that.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *