Could there be a cost factor that makes it more expensive to the state to postpone the election? (Especially considering the state has "no money" so to speak)?
Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/15/2003 3:24:23 PM >>> Bcause people who run elections -- that group of state officials -- like to run elections? It is their job to run elections, so it is their job to appeal? Otherwise they implicitly conceded that their way of running elections is deeply flawed (although perhaps they have already conceded that in court). Paul Finkelman Sanford Levinson wrote: > The AP Wife story concludes as follows: > > State officials, who conceded in court documents that the punch-card > voting > mechanisms are ``more prone to voter error than are newer voting > systems,'' > were likely to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. > > > > Why in the world does anyone believe that "state officials" would > necessarily want to appeal this case? > -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
