Florida Judge Rejects GOP Campaign’s Request for Recount Security Measures

The judge found no evidence of security problems, but the two sides agreed on voluntary measures.

A Broward County sheriff's deputy watches as election workers move sorted ballots on Monday at the Broward Supervisor of Elections office in Lauderhill, Florida.Joe Cavaretta/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A Florida judge on Monday rejected Republican Senate candidate Rick Scott’s attempt to impose new security measures on the contentious recount in Scott’s race and the state’s gubernatorial election, finding that there was no evidence of a shortage of security.

Instead, Chief Judge Jack Tuter of Florida’s 17th Circuit Court asked the Scott campaign and election officials to come to a voluntary agreement on security.

The proceedings on Monday came after the Scott campaign, along with President Donald Trump and other Republicans, sowed suspicions about fraud in the voting process in Florida, with particular focus on two Democratic-leaning counties, Broward and Palm Beach. The campaign petitioned for more security at the Broward County election headquarters, where a recount is underway, alleging that the integrity of the election is at stake. Among the campaign’s requests was that voting machines, tallying machines, and ballots be impounded when not in use in the recount to prevent tampering. Democrats fought the effort, arguing that it was a naked attempt to get a judge to lend validity to Scott’s unsubstantiated assertions of fraud.

But in court, the lawyer for Scottā€™s campaign, Jason Zimmerman, could offer little evidence that any fraud or irregularities had taken place. After more than an hour in court, the judge found no evidence to issue an order. Instead, he urged the elections supervisor and the Scott campaign to consider reaching an agreement to add more police officers watch the recount process at the Broward County elections headquarters. The two sides agreed Monday afternoon to add three sheriff’s department officers to monitor the process and guard election equipmentā€”a small increase in security to a process that already has many layers of security and monitoring.

The Scott campaignā€™s case relied largely on past instances of administrative blunders by the Broward Countyā€™s longtime supervisor of elections, Brenda Snipes, including the fact that she failed to comply with an open records request from the Scott campaign last week regarding the election returns. She ultimately complied; as her lawyer, Eugene Pettis, pointed out in court on Monday, that request had demanded information within 24 hours in the midst of the ballot-counting process, making it hard to comply on schedule. Still, Scottā€™s attorney insisted that ā€œpast is prologueā€ and asked Tuter to issue an order bolstering security.

Leonard Samuels, an attorney representing the Florida Democratic Party, stressed that issuing an order would sow more distrust in the process. ā€œThe problem is, what is the perception going to be to the public if an injunction is entered impounding machines or something to that effect?ā€ he said. ā€œThe public out there will think that something has gone untoward in this 2018 election.ā€

Samuels also stressed that the evidence was too weak to meet the legal threshold for a judicial injunction. ā€œYour Honor, youā€™re going to need to make findings of fact if an injunction is issued, so letā€™s look at what you could possibly put in the record as to what has transpired in 2018,ā€ he said. All there is, he said, was Zimmermanā€™s word.

Zimmermanā€™s emergency request for more security procedures, filed Sunday afternoon, had requested that voting machines, tallying machines, and ballots be impounded when not in use in the recount. But under questioning from the judge, it became clear that this would add little to the security procedures already in place. Instead, Zimmerman focused his request in court on distrust of the Broward County sheriffā€™s officers deployed to guard the vote-counting process because, he argued, they were under the operational control of the supervisor.

Attorneys for the elections supervisor stressed the rigorous security protocols already in place. Every step of the recount process is carried out under the supervision of the canvassing boardā€”made up of two county judges and the supervisorā€”with multiple layers of security protocols and monitors from both parties and the press. As Pettis pointed out to the judge, Scottā€™s legal team had not raised its security demands with the canvassing board before coming to court. ā€œThey filed an emergency motion with you, despite the fact that they are in front of the canvassing board all day yesterday, [and]not once did that come up,ā€ he said.

Aside from the legal battles over which ballots to count, the election in Florida has become a larger partisan fight over voting rights, with Republicans stoking fears of fraud and Democrats warning of voter suppression. The suspicions of fraud by the elections supervisor, pushed by Trump, Scott, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), have now become the grounds upon which the Scott campaign is asking for additional security. They also factored into Tuter’s decision to urge the two sides to come to an agreement on increased security. He did so based not on evidence of wrongdoing or inadequate procedures, but because, he said, ā€œI believe there needs to be some additional layer of confidence.ā€

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate