However, he failed to mention that every voter, rich or poor, in every county, had the same opportunity to be heard. No, Page focuses solely on the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn, in my opinion, a biased Florida Supreme Court ruling that, in effect, rewrote Florida election law. He doesn't even mention the Florida Supreme Court ruling, and, therefore, he only tells the side of the story that he wishes us to remember. By pitting rich counties against poor counties, he attempted to prove unequal protection exists. This type of thinking places blame on the county election supervisors and city council members who failed to keep up with other counties in purchasing new and more modern voting equipment, rather than on the individual responsibility of the voter to ensure he correctly marked his ballot, no matter the type of voting machine he used.
Equal protection is violated when any citizen is treated differently in like situations.
If you follow Page's reasoning to its logical conclusion, then every state in the union is violating the equal protection of its voting citizens against voting citizens of other states because they each have different election laws, voting machines and tabulation processes written by their state legislators. Apparently, Page doesn't like the concept of federalism. He thinks that we need a national voting standard for every state and county in the union for all of us to have equal protection of our voting rights. Enter words describing a concept or keywords.