Jump to content

Bush v. Gore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Isamil (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 24 February 2008 (→The Court's decision). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bush v. Gore
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 11, 2000
Decided December 12, 2000
Full case nameGeorge W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.
Docket no.00-949
Citations531 U.S. 98 (more)
121 S. Ct. 525; 148 L. Ed. 2d 388; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430; 69 U.S.L.W. 4029; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court
Holding
In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 “safe harbor” deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceRehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas
DissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentSouter, joined by Breyer; Stevens, Ginsburg (all but part C)
DissentGinsburg, joined by Stevens; Souter, Breyer (part I)
DissentBreyer, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg (except part I-A-1); Souter (part I)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, amend. XIV; 3 U.S.C. § 5

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature.[1] The per curiam opinion was argued on the basis of Equal Protection.[2]

The decision stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Democrat Al Gore, who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one District of Columbia elector abstaining). A majority (270) of the electoral votes are needed to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency in the Electoral College.

Background

See also: United States Electoral College and 2000 U.S. presidential election

The Presidential election in question took place November 7, 2000. Under the Electoral College system, each state conducts its own popular election for President, and the winner of each state's election receives a number of electoral votes. The winner of a majority of the electoral college is elected President of the United States. In 2000, 270 electoral votes were required for victory.

On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush had a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[3] The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated[4] automatic machine recount was issued. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory for Bush — on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[5] Florida's election laws[6] allow a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade. The four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However, Florida law also required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election,[7] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the 7-day deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary, after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide certification.[8] Prior to the 5 p.m. deadline on November 14, Volusia county completed its manual recount and certified its results. At 5 p.m., Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she was in receipt of the certified returns from all 67 counties, while Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting manual recounts.[9]

Harris issued a set of criteria (see the full criteria) by which she would determine whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late filing. Four counties submitted statements, and after reviewing the submissions Harris determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, she would certify the results of the presidential election on Saturday, November 18, 2000.[10] She did just that, certifying victory for Bush.

Case

Theodore Olson represented Bush
David Boies represented Gore

The oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the court on December 11 by lawyers representing both sides. Bush was represented before the Court by Theodore B. Olson, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General. Gore's oral argument was delivered by attorney David Boies. Due to the nature of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its opinion just 16 hours after hearing arguments. The Florida Supreme Court provided the requested clarifications on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board while the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore; the two cases were subsequently combined.

Jurisdiction

"Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had" may be appealed to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. In general, the Supreme Court will not hear a case when the state court has remanded the case for further proceedings. There are exceptions to this rule under Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn[11], but they are relatively rare.

Relevant law

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2

Main article: Article Two of the United States Constitution

Article II defines the executive branch of the federal government. Article II, Section 1, Clauses 1 and 2 specify the roles of President and Vice President and the method of their election. Clause 2 specifies the number of electors per state, and, most relevant to this case,[12] the manner in which they are selected:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...

The determination to be made was whether the Florida Supreme Court had violated the intent of the Florida Legislature.

3 U.S.C. § 5

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Section 5 of Title 3 of the United States Code regulates the "determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"[13] in Presidential elections. Of relevant note[12] to this case was the so-called "safe harbor" provision,[14] which allows states to appoint their electors without interference from Congress if done by a specified deadline:

If any State shall have provided...for its final determination of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State...at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination...shall be conclusive.[15]

Since the electors were set to meet December 18, the "safe harbor" deadline was December 12, just one day after the case was argued before the Court.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

First page of the Fourteenth Amendment, whose Equal Protection Clause was used in determining Bush v. Gore
Main article: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment consists of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause among many other provisions of importance after the Civil War. Of importance to this case[16] were only the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause ensures:

No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The case brought into question whether the standard of counting legal votes in Florida and subsequent recounts met the requirements of this clause.

Issues

The court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve the case.

  • Who wins on the merits of the case: Bush or Gore? In other words, are the recounts as they are currently being conducted, constitutional?[17]
  • If the recounts are unconstitutional, what is the remedy?[18]

The court, especially the majority, had trouble with the timing. The court thought that there was little chance of the recount being finished by the December 12 safe harbor deadline, even though the 5 person majority ordered the recount stopped three days earlier. [19]

Bush made two distinct claims, one relying on the Equal Protection clause, and the other based on Article II. Gore disputed each of these claims.

Equal Protection claim

Bush argued that the recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because there was no statewide standard that each county board could use to determine whether a given ballot was a legal vote. Because each county used its own standard to count each vote, Bush argued, some counties would have more liberal standards than other counties. Therefore, two voters could have marked their ballot in an identical manner, but one voter's ballot in one county would be counted while the other voter's ballot in a different county would be rejected, due to the varying standards.[20]

Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under the Equal Protection Clause.[21] Furthermore, Gore argued that the consequence of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it treated different voters differently would effectively render every state election unconstitutional[22]. and that each method has a different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a "punch-card" county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, every state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes in order to be constitutional.

Article II claim

Bush also argued that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Essentially, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law was so erroneous, that their ruling had the effect of making new law. Since this "new law" had not been directed by the Florida legislature, it violated Article II. Bush argued, however, that Article II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret state election law for itself to ensure that the intent of the state legislature is followed.[23]

Gore argued that Article II presupposes judicial review and interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme Court did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory construction in order to reach its decision.[24]

The Court's decision

The majority ruled 5-4 first that the recounts must be stopped, and then after sufficient time had elapsed, that no constitutionally-valid recount could timely be completed by the December 12 deadline. The opinion stated that the state-wide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter.'"[25]) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Four justices dissented -- two appointed by Democrats and two by Republicans. The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including that the principle of fairness. The actual counting had ended with the December 9th injunction issued by the same five justice majority, three days before any deadline. [19]

In brief the breakdown of the decisions were:

  • The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by five to four. (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[26] Scalia and Thomas in support[2]; Breyer,[27] Ginsburg, Souter[28] and Stevens opposed)
  • Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties. Although seven ended up determining there was indeed an Equal Protection violation, especially due to the fact that different standards are always used to count votes in a presidential election, only five agreed the recounts should stop. Two wanted to remand the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to permit the court to establish uniform standards of what constitutes a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.
  • The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected by six of the nine justices. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens opposed)

Conclusion

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the Supreme Court decided by a 7-2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the Court, but this time only by the five-four majority, held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining. The per curiam opinion stated that its applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."[29]

Criticism

Part of the reason recounts could not be completed was that various stoppages ordered by the various branches and levels of the judiciary, most notably the Court itself. Opponents argued[30] that it was improper for the court (by the same 5–4 majority) to grant an injunction stopping the recounts pending the outcome of the ruling based on the possibility of "irreparable harm"[31] to Bush by "casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."[31] Injunctions for irreparable harm cannot usually be granted if doing so would do equal or greater harm to another party (in this case, Al Gore). Apparently, the majority saw less irreparable harm in denying Gore the recount. Critics also argued that the Court's decision itself was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause that it claimed to defend[30] and contrary to the political question doctrine.[32]

The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh treatment of the majority. Justice Stevens' dissent concluded:[33]

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
I respectfully dissent.

This dissent was, itself, criticized, by Nelson Lund; [34]"The best known passage, which comes from Justice Stevens' dissent, consists of a rhetorical flourish rather than analysis."

Conversely, the decision itself was criticized by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, asserting in Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 that "the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath." Some critics argue the majority themselves seemed to seek refuge from their own logic[35] in the following sentence in the majority opinion:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.[36]

The court's defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read over-broadly,[37] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[38] It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis principle of paramount importance in the history of the Supreme Court and the American Legal system.

In his autobiography My Life, United States President Bill Clinton wrote that "If Gore had been ahead in the vote count and Bush behind, there's not a doubt in my mind that the same Supreme Court would have voted 9 to 0 to count the vote and I would have supported the decision.... Bush v. Gore will go down in history as one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made, along with the Dred Scott case."[39]

Criteria for late filing

The actual criteria issued by the Secretary:

Facts & Circumstances Warranting Waiver of Statutory Deadline

  1. Where there is proof of voter fraud that affects the outcome of the election. In re Protest of Election Returns, 707 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Broward County Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
  2. Where there has been a substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures, and reasonable doubt exists as to whether the certified results expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998).
  3. Where election officials have made a good faith effort to comply with the statutory deadline and are prevented from timely complying with their duties as a result of an act of God, or extenuating circumstances beyond their control, by way of example, an electrical power outage, a malfunction of the transmitting equipment, or a mechanical malfunction of the voting tabulation system. McDermott v. Harris, No. 00-2700 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 14, 2000).

Facts & Circumstances Not Warranting Waiver of Statutory Deadline

  1. Where there has been substantial compliance with statutory election procedures and the contested results relate to voter error, and there exists a reasonable expectation that the certified results expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998).
  2. Where there exists a ballot that may be confusing because of the alignment and location of the candidates’ names, but is otherwise in substantial compliance with the election laws. Nelson v. Robinson, 301 So. 2d 508, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (“[M]ere confusion does not amount to an impediment to the voters’ free choice if reasonable time and study will sort it out.”).
  3. Where there is nothing “more than a mere possibility that the outcome of the election would have been effected.” Broward County Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
    — Katherine Harris, Letter from Katherine Harris to Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (Nov. 15, 2000).

See also Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1220, 1226 n.5 (2000).[3]


See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ "Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)".
  2. ^ a b "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion, Per curiam".
  3. ^ a b "Palm Beach Country Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, etc., et al" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/florida2000.php for other documents related to the 2000 election dispute.
  4. ^ See Fla. Stat. § 102.141(4). "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 141".
  5. ^ "Election 2000 Timeline". PG Publishing Co., Inc. December 17, 2000. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ See Fla. Stat. § 102.166. "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166".
  7. ^ See Fla. Stat. § 102.112. "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 112".
  8. ^ "Leon County Judge Rules on Certification" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ "Text: Florida Recount Results". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ "Florida Supreme Court Opinion on Florida Presidential Election" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cox.html
  12. ^ a b "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 ... Last paragraph in Part I.
  13. ^ "US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors". The quote is the title of Section 5, Title 3.
  14. ^ Stone, Geoffrey R. "Equal Protection? The Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. Gore".
  15. ^ "US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors".
  16. ^ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". The petition presents the following questions: ... and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Last paragraph in Part I
  17. ^ Id. "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy." Last paragraph in Part II
  18. ^ Id. "The only disagreement is as to the remedy." Last paragraph in Part II
  19. ^ a b "Scalia and Stevens clash over recount stay in Bush v. Gore".
  20. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners" (PDF). "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from implementing an electoral system that gives the votes of similarly situated voters different effect based on the happenstance of the county or district in which those voters live." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part III-A
  21. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF). "The court below was quite insistent that the counting of ballots must be governed by a single uniform standard: the intent of the voter must control." Paragraph 3 in Argument, Part III-A
  22. ^ Id. "...if petitioners mean to say that all votes must be tabulated under a fixed and mechanical standard (e.g., the “two-corner chad rule”), their approach would render unconstitutional the laws of States that hinge the meaning of the ballot on the intent of the voter..." Paragraph 3 in Argument, Part III-A
  23. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners" (PDF). "By rewriting that statutory scheme—thus arrogating to itself the power to decide the manner in which Florida’s electors are chosen—the Florida Supreme Court substituted its judgment for that of the legislature in violation of Article II. Such a usurpation of constitutionally delegated power defies the Framers’ plan." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part I
  24. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF). "Even apart from the absurd theory that McPherson requires everything relevant to a state’s process for choosing electors to be packed into a specialized presidential electoral code, the very premise of petitioner’s argument is fatally flawed because the Florida Legislature re-enacted the contest statute in 1999 against the settled background rule that decisions of circuit courts in contest actions are subject to appellate review." Paragraph 5 in Argument, Part I
  25. ^ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". Id. 5th paragraph in Part I
  26. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Concurrence, Rehnquist".
  27. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Breyer".
  28. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Souter".
  29. ^ Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) at p. 109
  30. ^ a b Raskin, Jamin (March 2001). "Bandits in Black Robes". Washington Monthly. But in Bush v. Gore, the Rehnquist majority did not even ask, much less explain, how Bush was personally injured by the hypothetical possibility that anonymous third-party citizens might have their ballots counted differently in Florida's presidential election. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  31. ^ a b "Bush v. Gore, On Application for Stay, Majority Opinion" (PDF). 2nd last paragraph of Scalia's concurrence.
  32. ^ Tribe, Laurence H., "The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore". George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-33; Harvard Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 72. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=431080
  33. ^ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Stevens".
  34. ^ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore".
  35. ^ Fliter, John. "Review of The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right".
  36. ^ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". (6th paragraph from end of Part II-B)
  37. ^ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore" (PDF). ... it's important to remember that overly broad holdings can be worse than those that are too narrow. Broad holdings may effectively decide future cases that are factually dissimilar in ways that should be legally distinguished.
  38. ^ Spillenger, Clyde. "Supreme court fails to argue recount ruling". UCLA Today. This observation is the very antithesis of the rule of law. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  39. ^ Hirschkorn, Phil. "Crowds line up for Clinton book". CNN. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_v._Gore&oldid=193725999"