In a 1974 article published in the New York University Law Review,
Kenneth W. Starr addressed the question of judicial invalidation of state
elections, writing that: "It is unsurprising . . . that the courts have
accepted proof of a possible effect on outcome as sufficient to invoke the
invalidation remedy. This is a burden which may readily be carried when
serious violations occur, and the election is close."
Under Judge Starr's approach, "a new contest is warranted only
when illegal acts might skew the election returns sufficiently so as to
influence the outcome." Judge Starr concludes that "whenever an election is closely
contested and the alleged violations appear to be more than de minimis,"
and the violations may have affected the outcome, it is "particularly
appropriate" to call for a new election. Indeed, "[o]rdering a new
election . . . when the results of the prior one are suspicious comports
with the duties of federal courts both to sit as tribunals of equity,
balancing competing considerations, and to serve as the principal
protectors of constitutionally guaranteed rights."
Ken Starr was writing about a different case, at a different time, but it
seems that if the ballots in Palm Beach Countyare
illegal ,as they seem to be, this article makes the case for a revote.
By Alexander Reid and the editors of The New York University Law