ad info

 
CNN.comTranscripts
 
Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback  

 

  Search
 
 

 

TOP STORIES

Bush signs order opening 'faith-based' charity office for business

Rescues continue 4 days after devastating India earthquake

DaimlerChrysler employees join rapidly swelling ranks of laid-off U.S. workers

Disney's GO.com is a goner

(MORE)

MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 


WORLD

U.S.

POLITICS

LAW

TECHNOLOGY

ENTERTAINMENT

 
TRAVEL

ARTS & STYLE



(MORE HEADLINES)
 
CNN Websites
Networks image


TalkBack Live

Should the Manual Recount Count?

Aired November 21, 2000 - 3:00 p.m. ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every day you think, have they decided? Let's see who the winner is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: An election in limbo...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really think that there has been something going on down there. I definitely think that there is something wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: An election on hold...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It will be interesting to see what happens, who wins out, you know, and how many courts it goes to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: The vote in the hands of the Florida Supreme Court justices...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOM RUMBERGER, REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY: Well, I wouldn't accuse them of bias. I did think that philosophically some of them, who I know personally, have very deep-rooted philosophies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE ZELDIN, DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY: I thought the performance yesterday by lawyers and judges should give the American people great comfort in the fact that this is going to be on legal philosophies.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BATTISTA: And the nation on call waiting...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have had it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As Stalin once said, it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need to be getting at what the voter's intention really was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Should the recount count?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have laws, we have judges, we have systems that worked for over 200 years. Let them keep working.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

Well, we are still awaiting a decision from the Florida Supreme Court. As soon as we hear something, you will find out right along with us.

In the meantime, let's talk with Barbara Olson, former federal prosecutor and U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. She is a Bush supporter and author of the book, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Also so with us is Julian Epstein, chief counsel to the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.

Barbara, Julian, good to see you both.

JULIAN EPSTEIN, CHIEF MINORITY COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good afternoon, Bobbie.

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good morning -- good afternoon.

BATTISTA: Yes, afternoon already, how time flies down there in Tallahassee. All we can do is wait and pretty much speculate as to what the court might do and what the repercussions of that might be.

So, Barbara, if the court rules against Governor Bush, what does he do?

OLSON: Well, obviously it depends on how they rule. There can be many different versions of how they rule. What should have been before the court today is basically whether the secretary of state abused her discretion. They could make a ruling that decided to go and ignore pretty much the deadline set under law by the Florida statutes and determine new deadlines.

If that happened, then the Bush campaign and Governor Bush's people have to decide whether to appeal that decision, take the federal issues up to the United States Supreme Court. They have to decide under the parameters of the ruling if they can comply, how they can comply.

But one of the issues that came up yesterday in the argument that I think was most unusual, because Mr. Boies raised it only at argument, was asking the Supreme Court to set standards for all of these county recounts. And it was interesting because that wasn't briefed, it wasn't on appeal and I believe that the Bush campaign has filed a supplemental brief to the Supreme Court today telling the Supreme Court that they don't believe that is indeed before the court. But that's another area where they can rule today, set new standards.

And of course the big standard of the day is, will these dimpled ballots, these ballots where there is just a little indentation but not really a vote, be counted the same as the votes where they completely punched through the ballot and removed the chad.

BATTISTA: I want to come back to several of the issues that you've raised here.

But let me ask the same question to Julian, if the court rules against Vice President Gore, is that the end of it for him?

EPSTEIN: Well, I think -- it's hard to say. I don't want to speak for the Gore campaign. You can always contest the election. I think the Gore campaign's preference is to stay out of court and to get an actual recount. You know, we have an election here where the vice president, Gore, has won the majority of the popular vote. We have a situation in Florida.

OLSON: Not in Florida.

EPSTEIN: We have a situation in Florida where six million votes were cast. You have a vote difference between the two candidates of several hundred votes at this point. Everybody admits, there is nobody that can argue with a straight face that the machine system is flawed.

Therefore, under Florida law, you have very carefully laid out a preference for manual counts. Governor Bush agrees with that. He signed a law in Texas saying manual counts ought to be done in these type of circumstances. Governor Bush has also been beneficiary of manual counts. There have been seven manual -- seven counties, Republican counties, where manual counts have been conducted and they have netted a plus of about 500 votes for Governor Bush.

With respect to the central issue, the central issue that Barbara noted as to whether the secretary of state, Katherine Harris, violated her discretion, I would just put out to the audience, if you were in a dispute with someone, a legal dispute, would you want their business partner to be the person who was in change of settling that dispute? probably not.

And I think that what the Florida courts will clearly say is that she did abuse her discretion, because Florida law is very clear. They allow for either of the two parties to ask for manual counts because manual counts are more accurate ways of voting -- determining the election when there is an error and if that error could determine the outcome of the election.

BATTISTA: Let me jump in here quickly, because we have footage of something that took place this morning, which I thought was pretty interesting. When the Florida legislature opened up both its house and senate chambers, Katherine Harris got a standing ovation in both corridors.

Was that sort of a show of unity or support or something?

OLSON: I think everyone realizes that the pressure that secretary of state is under and that she has really tried to follow the law.

And I do want to respond. Julian made several very important statements that are completely inaccurate according to all of the briefs that have been filed in the information.

First of all, he said that manual recounts are more accurate than machine recounts. There is absolutely no proof that that is true. What is happening with the manual recounts is you have people who are very partisan on both sides looking at these ballots, determining...

EPSTEIN: It is preferred in the law, is the point, Barbara.

OLSON: It is not preferred in the law. It is an option. There is no right to a manual recount. And he talked about Texas, and since Julian decided to talk about Texas, I think we should make something very clear. Texas only has one recount and it's a very small number of states that have these punch cards where they do the manual recount. It is not statewide and it is limited and it has very exact standards how they do it.

EPSTEIN: Well, let me just respond if I can.

If you want to look go and at the statute, the statute is very clear. It is 102.166. The statute is very clear that when you have razor-thin electoral contests you can use a manual recount as the preferred method because the human eye is better than the machines, which can have error rates up to one and two percent.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Barbara, excuse me. That is reason why...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Well, then, why did Governor Bush in Texas sign that? One, two is the law is abundantly clear.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: We have an enormous amount of case law here which suggests that the manual courts are the preferred way to go. Look, the Bush campaign -- the Bush campaign has thrown up argument after argument. They first said there was an equal protection argument and courts threw that out. Then they've gone and said there was a deadline.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: If you want to call that a victory in the 11th circuit, be my guest, Barbara.

BATTISTA: Hold on, hold on.

EPSTEIN: The point is this: I don't think the Gore campaign wants to continue to go in and litigate. The point is that we have six million votes cast.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Barbara, please, I think it would more helpful if we could have a conversation than rather trying to interrupt each other.

BATTISTA: Wait, Julian, 20 seconds, go.

EPSTEIN: The Gore campaign believes that we should have one standard throughout state that all of the votes statewide should be counted on a manual basis. Everybody agrees the machine system creates error and error that could change result of the election. Let's stop going to these hyper-technical legal arguments about deadlines and other technicalities which the law in Florida has always said should give way to the paramount concern, which is determining intent of the voters. We can do it by a manual count, as they do it in Texas with very liberal standards, I might add, Barbara. A dimpled ballot in Texas counts as a vote.

BATTISTA: OK, Barbara, go.

OLSON: First of all, I said in Texas it's a single recount. There is not three and four recounts which we are having now. And indeed, when Julian asked for statewide manual recount, Al Gore never did ask for that. Instead, he chose four of his counties where he had landslide votes hoping that he would win. His own statisticians -- it was reported in the Miami paper today -- three of his own statisticians have said that he can't win under the manual recount, which is now why we are hearing the Gore people talking about dimples. They actually want the presidential election to be decided about whether someone rested a stylus on this card and didn't vote for Al Gore.

That is where we are today and I think regardless of what Mr. Julian says about Texas, which has very strict rules, in Florida the law is that there is not statewide rules. It would be great if there was and it's not before the Supreme Court. People have voted. The machines have counted. There is no evidence to say that the manual recounts in the fiasco that we have seen over the past few days is more accurate than an objective, nonpartisan machine.

BATTISTA: Let me go quickly to the audience before I've got to got to break here. Let me go quickly to the audience to get them in -- Sean.

SEAN: Ms. Olson has said that there's no right to a manual recount. But according to Chapter 102, Section 112, it says that if the 1 percent recount shows evidence of an error, that you shall do one of the three things that is offered. And one of those three things is the manual recount.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Sean, by the way, told us he could not get enough of this coverage. Can you tell?

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Well, understand, the 1 percent in the law is the machine recount that happened the very next day after the election. On December 8, the machine recount occurred. And that is by law. The hand manual recount is an option. It is not written in the law as an absolute right for a manual recount.

EPSTEIN: Barbara...

OLSON: It is the machine vote which every vote has had. And that's why it's clear that the votes have been counted. And they have -- more importantly, they have been counted objectively by a machine that is not a partisan, that is not weighing it one side or the other for a candidate.

EPSTEIN: There is two problems with what Barbara said. And I just wonder if she would respond to it. One is: If she thinks that manual counts are not accurate, why did Governor Bush sign a law preferring -- or giving an ability in Texas to use manual counts? Two is: Why have the Republicans already used manual recounts in seven different counties?

And three: How can you argue that a machine is more accurate, when after the first statutorily mandated recount, we went from a margin for Bush from 1,700 to 300 votes? How can you say that is a safe and reliable system with which to determine the next president of the United States?

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Barbara, hold that thought. I have got to go to break. So I will give you...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: I'll give you the chance to answer that when we come back. I do have go quickly to break. And I'll take Palima's (ph) question when get back as well.

In a moment: dimples, bulges, nicks, and other imperfections that are far more attractive on ballots than on thighs. Also, you can take part in our "Online Viewer Vote" at cnn.com/talkback. Today's question: Should the recount count? We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: A Republican observer of the Broward County recount accused a Democratic observer of eating chad. Jim Rowland says he told the unidentified Democrat that the chad were going to be collected, when the man ate one and put others in his pocket. State Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz no Democrat any chad and that the Republicans are telling tales out of frustration.

Couple of e-mails that came to us during break.

Vinod (ph), I think is his name, from Massachusetts says: "What is the rush? We should let manual recounts finish and see who the true winner. There is no crisis, only a very interesting civics lesson."

Dennis from Texas says: "It's obvious that the Florida Supreme Court is very partisan. But can they really overrule a judge's decision on an election law that is very clear?"

Barbara, I promised you time when we came back.

OLSON: Well, I would like quickly -- I mean, Julian and others keeping bringing up Texas. And I will say it very quickly: The Texas law is very specific and has very strong standards that each county must follow. There's less than seven counties that do a manual recount. But we are in Florida. And I think it's interesting that the Democratic tactic is to say: Everybody does it.

Well, what we have seen in Florida, we have seen lots of the fraud and the irregularities, like you have just mentioned. And what we have seen most upsettingly is the overseas ballot. With this manual recount, we have now had Democrats going into the counties, wanting every overseas ballot thrown out. And indeed, they were thrown out, until the attorney general decided to say: Yes, you even have to follow that law, whereas, if it's not a postmark.

But with the overseas -- even though they are letting in the postmarks -- they are not letting in the ones with U.S. postmarks, which come from the battleships. This is what you see when you have a manual recount. A machine will look at these. A machine will count them all evenly. We have had a case just today in one of counties where they had one standard. They have gone to another standard. And now they have got -- in Miami-Dade, they are considering the dimpled ballot.

And indeed, they had a congressional election where they had recount and they didn't allow dimpled ballots for their own congressional election. But in the presidential, they are changing the rules. This is not fair to the other voters. Every vote should count. But it should count evenly.

BATTISTA: Well...

OLSON: And Julian also said that the Republicans have been asking for manual recounts, which is simply not true.

EPSTEIN: Seven counties, Barbara.

OLSON: The states have done some manual recounts in the smaller areas. But they have not asked for any manual recounts.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Julian, what about those overseas absentee ballots without the postmarks. Are the Democrats going to challenge that?

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: I would like to respond to that. And I would just hope that Republicans would show the same equanimity that Democrats have. I think vice presidential candidate Lieberman -- Joseph Lieberman -- was on the shows on Sunday. And he said quite clearly that: I don't think that we should let legal technicalities cause the military ballots from overseas to be thrown out.

I agree with that. I don't -- even though many of the ballots were thrown out on rules...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Barbara, really, please stop interrupting me.

BATTISTA: Don't make me step in again.

EPSTEIN: OK. I think that what should occur is that those -- even those they were thrown out on rules that Secretary Harris -- Katherine Harris drew up -- I think that the Gore campaign...

OLSON: Not true.

EPSTEIN: ... and the others in Florida ought to make it clear that we don't want those votes thrown out on technical purposes. Now, that's very different from what the Bush campaign is doing when comes to Broward, Palm and Miami-Dade, and some of the others counties. They have used every conceivable argument that they can to try and prevent this preferred method in Florida law, which is the manual counts.

They campaigned on the notion of listening to voice of the American people. But they are using every legal means they can to prevent their votes from being counted in the way that Florida law prefers. Now, with respect to the standards, Barbara seems to be complaining about dimpled chads.

OLSON: I think it's the Democrats that have brought all the cases. There's a little problem there, Julian.

EPSTEIN: Barbara, please stop. Barbara -- Bonnie -- Bobbie, I wish you -- I wonder if you could ask Barbara to stop interrupting me. I really -- I don't interrupt her.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Hold on. You know what? Let me get a phone call in here quickly and...

EPSTEIN: I just wanted to make one other point on the chads, Bobbie, if I could, very quickly.

BATTISTA: OK. Quickly.

EPSTEIN: Barbara makes point about dimpled chads. Let me read to you again a law that Governor Bush signed about dimpled chads. And the law provides for counting dimpled chads. It says that a vote may be counted if you see an indentation on the chad from a stylus or other our object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable vote of the voter. That's what it says in Florida. That's the standard that Governor Bush has already supported.

OLSON: No, it doesn't say that in Florida. You really hate Florida law, don't you?

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Now, when it comes to seniors -- when it comes to seniors and African-Americans in the area of Palm Beach and Miami- Dade, they want to take a different position. And they don't want that standard used. I think there ought to be one standard. It ought to be statewide.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: I think it ought to be statewide. And I think that it ought to apply equally to everybody.

Now, when it comes to seniors -- when it comes to seniors and African-Americans in the area of Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, they want to take a different position and they don't want that standard used. I think there ought to be one standard. It ought to be statewide and I think that it ought to apply equally to everybody.

OLSON: You know, Julian, there is no basis and you know that.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Well, it sounds like we may get that standard from the Florida Supreme Court here.

EPSTEIN: We, I think we should have it, but the Bush campaign continues to fight that at every step of the way.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Why didn't you ask for it?

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call quickly from Patricia.

EPSTEIN: The reason why the Gore campaign didn't ask for that, Barbara, is because if we have different standards, you're going to go back in crying into Federal court the way you have, even though you campaigned on the basis of leaving these decisions to state courts.

OLSON: Every case has been brought by the Gore campaign and you know it except for one Constitutional case.

EPSTEIN: The federal court decision? The federal court decision, Barbara, was brought by the Gore campaign? Remember, you guys campaigned...

OLSON: One federal case. I said every campaign...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Wait, let Barbara answer. Let Barbara answer, Julian.

EPSTEIN: You guys campaigned on returning this discretion to state court. You then bring it right into federal court.

OLSON: I said every case been brought by Gore campaign except for the federal case which was protecting constitutional rights of every citizen. One case.

BATTISTA: I've got to take a break. I'll get to Patricia on the phone when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call from Patricia on the phone with us from Texas -- Patricia.

PATRICIA: Hi, Bobbie. Love the show.

BATTISTA: Oh, thanks.

PATRICIA: I outraged at Al Gore because he has the audacity to put the good of country second to his own selfish ambition, because wherever there is jealousy and selfish ambition there is every evil thing and I am against three and four recounts. That is absurd. The Supreme Court needs to be -- needs to rule on law, not on politics.

BATTISTA: All right, Patricia, thanks very much and to Sabian (ph) in the audience. Your comment.

SABIAN: Absolutely. We're seeing democracy at work. At least these issues, these disagreements are being discussed and debated in the courts and not on out streets. We're not shooting each other. We're not beating each other up and throwing rocks at each other. These are being interpreted based on law, based on arguments in a very civil way. You're seeing democracy at work and this is great. This is a wonderful example.

EPSTEIN: Amen. Amen.

BATTISTA: Let me ask the two of you, Barbara and Julian, about the possibility that the issue of a revote might come up in front of the state Supreme Court. It seems that most people think that's pretty dead issue, but at the same time, one the judges did ask a direct question about a revote, which made a lot of people wonder if they're going to be discussing that as well -- Barbara.

OLSON: Well, actually one of the counties on the lower court ruled that they couldn't and there's constitutional problems with a nationwide revote on a presidential election. Our Constitution states that the election shall be on same day as well as the statute in our United States code says the election has to be on same day and I think that would be a real problem if they decided to revote.

Policy-wise, the problem you have is people going into the now polls knowing the information they have. They wouldn't be voting not knowing the closeness. Ralph Nader's vote obviously would be very different today than it was on November 7th.

So, I don't think a revote would be fair to either candidate or the other candidates and I think the American people that aren't in those counties would say, well, why not let us all have a revote and of course you have the sort of mayhem nationwide that we're seeing here in Florida.

BATTISTA: So what about those folks in Palm Beach, Julian, then who thought they voted for Gore and may have voted for Buchanan. Instead, they're just out of luck now.

EPSTEIN: Sure. Well, let me just respond by saying amen to I think it was Fabian in your audience who said that we are working the system out through the legal process and whoever the winner is -- if it's George Bush, I'll get behind and say it was done legally and her should be a legitimate president. If it's Vice President Gore, I think the Republicans should do the same.

And secondly, with respect to Barbara's point about the Constitutional issue, I don't necessarily disagree with her on that. The Constitution sets out that all election shall be cast for the president on certain day and it shall happen nationwide. It's hard to then go and recreate the circumstances just for the state of Florida.

There is some precedent in state law for ordering revotes. There is some precedent is state law for statistical adjustments. This could arguably be warranted in Palm Beach County, where you see Pat Buchanan receiving votes I think everyone agrees he probably -- that probably weren't intended for him. But that would be difficult to do that now that we're into a presidential election.

So, I don't necessarily disagree with Barbara. But I just wish that Barbara -- the way that I'm showing some give on this issue, I wish Barbara would show some give when she may not be right on the law. For example, it's very clear, as your audience pointed out, that the standard in Florida is very clear, when you have a razor-thin election with errors, and we know there are errors out there, that you get the manual recounts rather than trying to fight it through your surrogates who are in state office or in the courts at every step of the way.

Let's just get a vote. Let's use a single standard. Let's try to find out what the Florida voters wanted and then let's move on.

BATTISTA: Let me get Barbara back in here.

OLSON: Well, the problem is that the Florida law is very clear and George Bush did win the popular vote in Florida. There was the automatic machine recount which was done the next day when the ballots had only been run through once. George Bush won that machine recount.

Now we're into four different recounts, different standards in every single county and when you said about the people thought they were voting for Gore and voted for Buchanan. I don't know how you know that's true, Bobbie, because indeed Patrick Buchanan had a vice president who was very popular with a lot of people running on his is ticket and so I don't know that those people were not voting for the vice presidential candidate, which I believe was first African- American to be on ticket for vice president.

And so, we're assuming facts that aren't necessarily true and I think we need to step back and say how can we decide this on the most objective manner. And a recount is not.

EPSTEIN: Every statistician that has looked that has said that that was just not possible. It wasn't possible...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Well, I have to say we did -- I've got on to go, you guys, because we're running.

EPSTEIN: Let's stop trying to fight this through these...

EPSTEIN: And I will say -- just for the record, Barbara, we were down in Palm Beach and we did talk to a bunch of voters down there who did think that. Now, I don't know if they were telling truth or not, but that's what they told us.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: And every statistician will tell you the same thing.

BATTISTA: All right, Barbara Olson, Julian Epstein, thank you both very much for joining us today. We appreciate it.

EPSTEIN: Thank you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: A couple of e-mails while we go to break. John Paul from Indiana says: "Any Florida Supreme Court ruling in favor of Gore is filled with political bias.

Tony in California says: "Why not ask the Bush team what they would do if the tables were turned? Wouldn't they fight to have ballots counted by hand?" We'll be back right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back.

Let me go quickly to the audience to get a little bit of feel for the frustrations that they have. Billy, you are a Gore supporter?

BILLY: Most definitely, and I do also come from Nashville, Tennessee. It's very disappointing that we did lose the state of Tennessee. I think a lot of that has to do with the Republican governor and two very well known Republican senators.

The thing that bothered me about your guest Barbara, what she said about the votes for Buchanan, there is not a Buchanan supporter alive that would tell you after the election was over that they accidentally voted for Buchanan and they really wanted to vote for Gore. If you are a Buchanan supporter, you would have stayed that way all the way through it. The whole thing that bothers me, when I lived abroad, I always wondered if my vote really counted because it would be sent over from the military, and now for this particular election alone proves that every vote does count and should count until the end, period.

BATTISTA: And over to Tim.

TIM: I just have to say that this has got to be -- it's got to stop, because we could go on forever. We could recount the whole United States. The Democrats are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, and they need to stop now and look forward four years and declare Bush a winner.

BATTISTA: All right, joining us now, Congressman Alcee Hastings, a Democrat from Florida's 23rd District, which includes Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties.

REP. ALCEE HASTINGS (D), FLORIDA: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Good to see you again.

Also, Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley. Good to see you again, Congressman, as well.

REP. MARK FOLEY (R), FLORIDA: Thank you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Let me start with you, Congressman Hastings, because you have been a federal judge. Where do you think the state Supreme Court is headed on this? And I know I am asking you to speculate.

HASTINGS: I understand, and let me do just that. I think, firstly, that the court will rule either later today or early tomorrow in light of the Thanksgiving holiday. I think that they are mindful also of the time constraints that are out there that have to be met: for example, the certification of the December 12 Electoral College date that's looming, and the fact that there is an opportunity for the loser in court, and the overall election to contest the election within 10 days.

So the court has its job cut out for it without question. But what I think they'll say is that Katherine Harris does, in fact, have discretion. I think they will say that the canvassing boards, likewise, have discretion. And I find it interesting that folk would argue that they would not want the court to outline the methodology for the voting, because left to the discretion of the canvassing boards, it's pretty obvious that they will count the dimples and the chads that are ongoing.

I also think, finally, Bobbie, that they will say that the manually-counted votes do, in fact, count. They have to reconcile the conflict in the election code, it is unfortunate. Florida will have to overhaul and reform its whole election code as rightly they should, and we should, at the federal level as well. So the healthy thing that will come from this will be the positive of the election code reform this time.

BATTISTA: Congressman Foley, do you think that the court will address specifically deadlines and whether dimpled ballots should count and set some sort of standards?

FOLEY: Well, again, Bobbie, I am not a lawyer, but I think they're going to defer back to the circuit court, which they seemed to do the other day when they did not impede the recount, they basically said it's a circuit bench decision.

Let me also alert to people to the timeline. I'm here today in Tallahassee, the Supreme Court behind me -- we swore in the new members of both the House and the Senate here in Tallahassee. That's the reason for the compressed timeline, the election day, seven days later for certification, so the state of Florida can operate as it's required to under the Constitution.

Yesterday in court, they talked about the electors date, the -- December 12 and December 18, but again I want to bring people back to the central focus. The reason those dates are fixed and set is because why I am here today is to swear in this new House and Senate representing the state of Florida.

BATTISTA: Let me...

HASTINGS: I am not clear about what you are saying, Mark. The reason for the date, for the certification to the -- or to the archive, is at the United States Senate of December 18, for example, for Electoral College certification, is its implanted in the United States code as a derivative of the United States Constitution. And the Florida legislature should be...

FOLEY: Oh, and I agree with that.

HASTING: I'm sorry, Mark.

FOLEY: No, I agree with that Alcee, I'm not disputing the date of the Electoral College. I have that firmly and squarely. What I am saying, though, is the reason we have the timeline -- because the state runs the election, as you well know, for Florida.

HASTINGS: Exactly.

FOLEY: And we are swearing in the new members of the House and Senate today, including those from Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. And it's done expeditiously like this to comport with the Florida Constitution that requires the legislature to be sworn in and mobilized to work for the state of Florida and the citizens thereof.

HASTINGS: Then I clearly understand you.

BATTISTA: Let me ask you both -- I know you're out there and you're talking to the folks down there, and we were as well a week or so ago. But what are the constituents telling you now, Congressman Hastings? Are they getting a little frustrated and running out of patience?

HASTINGS: I had a town hall meeting last night, Bobbie, at the Seminole Indian tribe in Broward County and some 200 people attended, including most of the activists that participated in turning out the substantial vote in the African American community. Those persons were giving me anecdotal information regarding matters pertaining to the election code and were not at all concerning about how long it's going to take.

As a matter of fact, it was rather interesting -- in the whole of the evening, the Supreme Court of Florida, nor any other court, was mentioned. The only thing that was mentioned was, what do we do about this mess and how do we find a methodology for change and modernization of election equipment? So at least -- the early-on report that I can give you is that my constituents are basically very tolerant of the judicial process and, seemingly, not upset at all that the manual count is going on.

BATTISTA: Are you are finding that less true with Republican constituents, Congressman Foley?

FOLEY: No, the Republicans are clearly concerned about procedure and process here; but the one wonderful thing is this is a vibrant democracy. And the one thing I have heard from both sides -- Democrat and Republican -- is they say, dispense with the partisanship. We both announced during the campaigns we were for saving Social Security, Medicare, fighting hate crimes, strengthening Social Security, prescription drug coverage. I think that voters are going to hold both parties accountable to say, get your job done and quit sniping at each other. HASTINGS: Bobbie, if Mark Foley and I were the two people that are required to produce bipartisan legislation, then we're well ahead in this country. I'm fond of saying of what I believe to be true: The legitimacy of the presidency is at stake, the integrity of democracy is at stake.

Mark and I can work together. I don't know about the rest of our colleagues, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Well, we'll talk a little bit more about that when we come back; and I want to talk a little about transitioning as well. So we'll take a quick break here and continue in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. Jeremy (ph) from California says: "The winner of this election will really be the loser, questions of legitimacy will forever surround him." And I wanted to ask the two congressmen about that -- the problems that the winner of this election may have, particularly with transitioning, as -- the longer this drags on. I mean, that's something that they should be working on now, putting together transition teams. I understand it takes a fair amount of time to do that and we lose -- you know, we keep losing all these days.

What do you think, Congressman Foley?

FOLEY: I disagree. The one thing that's beautiful about this process -- and I've been in Congress six years and I know there is emotion running high right now, but we are a great country and we ultimately recognize that our citizens, after the election, are neither Democrat, Republican, or independent -- they're Americans. And we will support -- me, particularly, as a Republican and, I can assure you, a number of others -- I can't speak for everybody -- are going to rise to the occasion.

If it's governor -- or it's Vice President Gore, we will be there solidly to make America a better place. We want to the world to know, we want the financial markets to know that we are together as a nation, focusing on our domestic problems and working on our international problems. And I think it's the same, and I know Alcee would say the same, and I'm sure he will -- that if it is, in fact, Governor Bush we will solidly back the president of the United States. That's the difference -- it's not a party president, it's the president of the United States of America.

BATTISTA: But Congressman Hastings, should they be working on their transition teams now?

HASTINGS: My understanding is that Governor Bush is. Vice President Gore probably has a slight edge in that regard, in light of the fact that he has been vice president for eight years, and I believe that he could jump-start a cabinet inside a week without any hesitancy at all.

Mark, makes a very good point, and that is that this democracy is strong. And the healthy exercise that this nation is conducting, is one that should be held up for the world to see. Our judicial process is at work now. We have had our vote. All of the inner-workings and the machinations of the election code have come into play and are fully being manifested throughout this nation.

The razor-thin elections all over this country suggest to us that America wants to be governed from the center. I don't think you're going to see any broad and sweeping legislation come forward. I do believe that folk like Mark Foley and myself will tool the process sufficiently in order to be able to do those things that will help America. And one of the things that may come from this is we may be required to continue paying down some portion of the debt; and if that kind of status quo is what I believe may come to fruition, then I think that it will be beneficial for all of us as Americans.

BATTISTA: All right; Congressman Hastings and Congressman Foley, thank you both very much, once again, for joining us today.

HASTINGS: Thanks a lot.

FOLEY: Thank you, Bobbie -- thanks again.

BATTISTA: We'll take a quick break here and then we'll go back to the audience, see what they think right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: An attorney for the Libertarian Party filed a motion today to prevent the certification of the recount. The motion claims the recount is irredeemably tainted by the fact that Libertarian election observers were not permitted, which is a violation of Florida law.

Love the Thanksgiving e-mail -- or chat room comments there. Let me get up in the audience and see what they are thinking. Sheryl (ph) is from Colorado.

What are your thoughts?

SHERYL: Well, I think that, if nothing else, that we have learned that -- I always thought that all of our votes counted, that these chad things -- I had never known that they had existed -- and all that absentee ballots were counted. And so, if nothing else, we have learned a lot through this whole process. Whether we like it or not is something different. But at least it's been an education for us all.

BATTISTA: And Keith?

KEITH: It seems like the lawyers are fighting a lot of what legislature intent was when they wrote the laws. There is no way they can guess or project to see what was going to happen now.

BATTISTA: Ted on the phone from Illinois -- go ahead, Ted.

CALLER: Hi, Bobbie. BATTISTA: Hi.

CALLER: You know, it's painfully obvious that Florida cannot hold a nonbiased election. So I -- living up here in the rest of states, you know, I want to do what the Democrats and the Republicans are. And I think we should throw out the whole state of Florida out.

BATTISTA: Take Florida out of the Union? Come on, now.

CALLER: Well, actually, you know, I think we should throw their votes out, Bobbie. I mean, you know, that's what they're doing that there.

BATTISTA: The whole state. Oh, I see. You are voting for the option that they just shouldn't get to vote at all.

CALLER: Exactly, if they can't hold...

BATTISTA: But what does that do -- that offends an awful lot of folks down in Florida who voted legitimately and without problems. And how do you do that?

CALLER: Well, basically, down they're now, both sides are. They're throwing the overseas out. They're looking at their people in Palm Beach that are not getting their votes counted simply because they marked them wrong. You know, they don't want to do recounts. They don't want to do this. They don't want to do that. They cannot hold a fair election. Then you know what? We run with what we have got have. We have got the Electoral College.

We can just say: Look, until you can learn to vote right, you don't vote this election.

BATTISTA: You are hard on folks down there, Ted. We will have to wait and see how the courts -- they'll decide whether or not this has been a fair election, I guess. And we are going to have to trust that.

Manuel from Texas.

MANUEL: Yes, I just know that on all of the election systems that we have all over the United States, everybody knows there is an error rate. They make mistakes. These are machines. If we wanted perfect elections and we wanted to hand count all of them, that's what we would be doing right now. But the machines are the ones that do it. The banks, it's not humans that are counting the money, it's machines. And they're supposed to be perfect - I mean, as close to perfect as you can.

BATTISTA: We have got to take another break. We'll be back here and check the poll right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We only have a few seconds left. So we will take a look at our TALKBACK LIVE "Online Viewer Vote." The question was: Should the recount count? That has pretty much been our question everyday here for the last few days. And 28 percent say yes, 72 percent say no. It seems that number keeps growing.

And we will see you again tomorrow. We are out of time.

Oh, wait. Wait. They have miscalculated. We have a whole minute left. So we have time to go back to the audience.

Sean, you had a comment.

SEAN: Yes, about the deadline, the seven-day deadline that they have in Florida: It took Volusia County, a relatively small county, seven days to do their recount. But Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties represent one-quarter of the state's population: 1.5 million votes out of 6 million. It's -- even if they have more people, it is going to take them longer to count their ballots.

BATTISTA: Are you in law school or something, Sean, or -- you said you were riveted to the CNN coverage of all of this, or...

SEAN: I am a computer science major who is considering computer law.

BATTISTA: Oh, OK. You will have your hands full.

Thanks very much for joining us. We'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   


Back to the top  © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.