Obscure vote by mail clause in FL law
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
The following FL 2018 statute detail seems puzzling:
3. A vote-by-mail ballot is not considered illegal if the signature of the elector does not cross the seal of the mailing envelope.
Does this mean that a ballot is illegal if the signature does cross the seal of the mailing envelope? Why even have such a rule?
united-states florida vote-by-mail
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
The following FL 2018 statute detail seems puzzling:
3. A vote-by-mail ballot is not considered illegal if the signature of the elector does not cross the seal of the mailing envelope.
Does this mean that a ballot is illegal if the signature does cross the seal of the mailing envelope? Why even have such a rule?
united-states florida vote-by-mail
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
The following FL 2018 statute detail seems puzzling:
3. A vote-by-mail ballot is not considered illegal if the signature of the elector does not cross the seal of the mailing envelope.
Does this mean that a ballot is illegal if the signature does cross the seal of the mailing envelope? Why even have such a rule?
united-states florida vote-by-mail
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
The following FL 2018 statute detail seems puzzling:
3. A vote-by-mail ballot is not considered illegal if the signature of the elector does not cross the seal of the mailing envelope.
Does this mean that a ballot is illegal if the signature does cross the seal of the mailing envelope? Why even have such a rule?
united-states florida vote-by-mail
united-states florida vote-by-mail
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
asked Nov 4 at 6:06
agc
4,8721550
4,8721550
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
35
down vote
accepted
This is a clarification of a regulation that may have been misunderstood in the past.
If the signature matches that held on file then the vote can be counted, whether the signature crosses the seal of the envelope or not.
Florida does require mailed votes to be signed by the voter. The signature is put on the envelope. And the envelope is printed in such a way that it is possible and common for people to sign over the seal (which also adds a degree of security, making it harder for a person to modify the vote after it has been sealed)
Because of this, the supervisor of elections in individual counties may have thought that the signature must cross the seal. But this is not the case. The clause clarifies this fact. If the signature matches then the envelope should be opened and processed whether or not the signature crosses the seal.
In logic from P ⇒ Q it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q, nor Q ⇒ P (but (P ⇒ Q) is equivalant to (¬Q ⇒ ¬P))
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
2
Re "it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q": True. The logic was clear enough -- I vaguely remember that particular error having at least one specific name. However the doubt was that legal logic is not always formal logic, with the added complication that such laws aren't immune to administrative confusion and reinterpretation.
– agc
Nov 4 at 20:49
1
It is the error of "Affirming the consequent", or perhaps "Denying the Antecedent"
– James K
Nov 4 at 22:03
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
35
down vote
accepted
This is a clarification of a regulation that may have been misunderstood in the past.
If the signature matches that held on file then the vote can be counted, whether the signature crosses the seal of the envelope or not.
Florida does require mailed votes to be signed by the voter. The signature is put on the envelope. And the envelope is printed in such a way that it is possible and common for people to sign over the seal (which also adds a degree of security, making it harder for a person to modify the vote after it has been sealed)
Because of this, the supervisor of elections in individual counties may have thought that the signature must cross the seal. But this is not the case. The clause clarifies this fact. If the signature matches then the envelope should be opened and processed whether or not the signature crosses the seal.
In logic from P ⇒ Q it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q, nor Q ⇒ P (but (P ⇒ Q) is equivalant to (¬Q ⇒ ¬P))
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
2
Re "it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q": True. The logic was clear enough -- I vaguely remember that particular error having at least one specific name. However the doubt was that legal logic is not always formal logic, with the added complication that such laws aren't immune to administrative confusion and reinterpretation.
– agc
Nov 4 at 20:49
1
It is the error of "Affirming the consequent", or perhaps "Denying the Antecedent"
– James K
Nov 4 at 22:03
add a comment |
up vote
35
down vote
accepted
This is a clarification of a regulation that may have been misunderstood in the past.
If the signature matches that held on file then the vote can be counted, whether the signature crosses the seal of the envelope or not.
Florida does require mailed votes to be signed by the voter. The signature is put on the envelope. And the envelope is printed in such a way that it is possible and common for people to sign over the seal (which also adds a degree of security, making it harder for a person to modify the vote after it has been sealed)
Because of this, the supervisor of elections in individual counties may have thought that the signature must cross the seal. But this is not the case. The clause clarifies this fact. If the signature matches then the envelope should be opened and processed whether or not the signature crosses the seal.
In logic from P ⇒ Q it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q, nor Q ⇒ P (but (P ⇒ Q) is equivalant to (¬Q ⇒ ¬P))
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
2
Re "it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q": True. The logic was clear enough -- I vaguely remember that particular error having at least one specific name. However the doubt was that legal logic is not always formal logic, with the added complication that such laws aren't immune to administrative confusion and reinterpretation.
– agc
Nov 4 at 20:49
1
It is the error of "Affirming the consequent", or perhaps "Denying the Antecedent"
– James K
Nov 4 at 22:03
add a comment |
up vote
35
down vote
accepted
up vote
35
down vote
accepted
This is a clarification of a regulation that may have been misunderstood in the past.
If the signature matches that held on file then the vote can be counted, whether the signature crosses the seal of the envelope or not.
Florida does require mailed votes to be signed by the voter. The signature is put on the envelope. And the envelope is printed in such a way that it is possible and common for people to sign over the seal (which also adds a degree of security, making it harder for a person to modify the vote after it has been sealed)
Because of this, the supervisor of elections in individual counties may have thought that the signature must cross the seal. But this is not the case. The clause clarifies this fact. If the signature matches then the envelope should be opened and processed whether or not the signature crosses the seal.
In logic from P ⇒ Q it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q, nor Q ⇒ P (but (P ⇒ Q) is equivalant to (¬Q ⇒ ¬P))
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
This is a clarification of a regulation that may have been misunderstood in the past.
If the signature matches that held on file then the vote can be counted, whether the signature crosses the seal of the envelope or not.
Florida does require mailed votes to be signed by the voter. The signature is put on the envelope. And the envelope is printed in such a way that it is possible and common for people to sign over the seal (which also adds a degree of security, making it harder for a person to modify the vote after it has been sealed)
Because of this, the supervisor of elections in individual counties may have thought that the signature must cross the seal. But this is not the case. The clause clarifies this fact. If the signature matches then the envelope should be opened and processed whether or not the signature crosses the seal.
In logic from P ⇒ Q it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q, nor Q ⇒ P (but (P ⇒ Q) is equivalant to (¬Q ⇒ ¬P))
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
edited Nov 4 at 8:52
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
answered Nov 4 at 6:35
James K
31.3k892132
31.3k892132
2
Re "it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q": True. The logic was clear enough -- I vaguely remember that particular error having at least one specific name. However the doubt was that legal logic is not always formal logic, with the added complication that such laws aren't immune to administrative confusion and reinterpretation.
– agc
Nov 4 at 20:49
1
It is the error of "Affirming the consequent", or perhaps "Denying the Antecedent"
– James K
Nov 4 at 22:03
add a comment |
2
Re "it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q": True. The logic was clear enough -- I vaguely remember that particular error having at least one specific name. However the doubt was that legal logic is not always formal logic, with the added complication that such laws aren't immune to administrative confusion and reinterpretation.
– agc
Nov 4 at 20:49
1
It is the error of "Affirming the consequent", or perhaps "Denying the Antecedent"
– James K
Nov 4 at 22:03
2
2
Re "it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q": True. The logic was clear enough -- I vaguely remember that particular error having at least one specific name. However the doubt was that legal logic is not always formal logic, with the added complication that such laws aren't immune to administrative confusion and reinterpretation.
– agc
Nov 4 at 20:49
Re "it does not follow that ¬P ⇒ ¬Q": True. The logic was clear enough -- I vaguely remember that particular error having at least one specific name. However the doubt was that legal logic is not always formal logic, with the added complication that such laws aren't immune to administrative confusion and reinterpretation.
– agc
Nov 4 at 20:49
1
1
It is the error of "Affirming the consequent", or perhaps "Denying the Antecedent"
– James K
Nov 4 at 22:03
It is the error of "Affirming the consequent", or perhaps "Denying the Antecedent"
– James K
Nov 4 at 22:03
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35069%2fobscure-vote-by-mail-clause-in-fl-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
