Two howlers in one simple statement:
1) “It’s pretty clear [that] the outcome [in 2004] wasn’t affected” by Republican malfeasance. “Pretty clear” to whom? On the basis of what evidence?
2) That outcome is “much less important than focusing on the problems with the election systems.” So how exactly do you “focus” on a system’s problems when it evidently has no problems?
What is this guy teaching in the law school at Ohio State? Maybe they should also hire Ken Blackwell to teach ethics.
Analysis: Bush, Resnick Elections Refuse to Die As Lawsuits Live on in the Courts
By JOHN McCARTHY
COLUMBUS, Ohio Jun 12, 2006 (AP)– President Bush is almost midway through his second term and Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick is in the last months of her final term, but the elections that got them there are still the subject of contention in Ohio courts and political circles.
Bush’s 118,000-vote victory in Ohio out of more than 5.5 million cast raised a firestorm in 2004 among those who had predicted that the Republicans would try to steal the election.
This month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s article in Rolling Stone magazine detailing the 2004 Ohio election rekindled the debate. However, one elections expert said it’s time to let it go and focus on problems that still could harm Ohio elections.
“I think it’s pretty clear, based on the original evidence, the (2004) outcome wasn’t affected,” said Daniel Tokaji, an assistant professor of law at Ohio State University. “It’s much less important than focusing on the problems with the election systems Å that haven’t been fixed yet.”
“The framing I have in mind for litigation is to look at what is being set up for ’06 and say we’re not speculating that people are willing to suppress the vote, we have the proof,” Arnebeck said. “It’s a positive view of the evidence of fraud in ’04.”