[An openly skeptical explanation in plain English]
majority:
A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring
equal protection guarantees.... When a court orders a statewide remedy,
there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements
of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.
CHIEF
JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concurring:
Florida statutory law cannot reasonably be thought to
require the counting of improperly marked ballots... In precincts
using punch-card ballots, voters are instructed to punch out the ballot
cleanly... No reasonable person would call it “an error in the vote
tabulation,” or a “rejection of legal votes,” when electronic or electromechanical
equipment performs precisely in the manner designed, and fails to count
those ballots that are not marked in the manner that these voting instructions
explicitly and prominently specify.
JUSTICE
STEVENS, dissenting:
In the interest of finality ... the majority effectively
orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots
reveal their intent—and are therefore legal votes under state law—but were
for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. 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.
JUSTICE
SOUTER, dissenting:
If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course
indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible
that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and
political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress.
JUSTICE
GINSBURG, dissenting:
There is no cause here to believe that the members of
Florida’ s high court have done less than “their mortal best to discharge
their oath of office,” and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation
of Florida law. I cannot agree that the recount adopted by the Florida
court, flawed as it may be, would yield a result any less fair or precise
than the certification that preceded that recount... the Court’s conclusion
that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the
Court’s own judgment
will not allow to be tested.
JUSTICE
BREYER, dissenting:
The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to
grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme
Court to decide whether the recount should resume. ...no preeminent
legal concern, or practical concern related to legal questions, required
this Court to hear this case, let alone to issue a stay that stopped Florida’s
recount process in its tracks...the appearance of a split decision runs
the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the Court itself.
That confidence is a public treasure. It has been built slowly over many
years, some of which were marked by a Civil War and the tragedy of segregation.
It is a vitally necessary ingredient of any successful effort to protect
basic liberty and, indeed, the rule of law itself.
majority:
...Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is
not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance
democratic stability requires. Another issue in the case, moreover, is
the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of letting the standard for
determination of voters’ intent—dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc.—vary
from county to county...
dissent:
...Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably
cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election. In fact, the statutory
provision relating to damaged and defective ballots states that “no vote
shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the
intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board.”
majority:
We are dealing with the essence of the structure of our
democratic society; with the interrelationship, within that framework,
between the United States
Constitution and the statutory scheme established pursuant
to that authority by the Florida Legislature.... the Legislature
has granted trial courts broad authority to resolve election disputes and
fashion appropriate relief.
dissent:
I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging
of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this
state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have
to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional
crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this
Court as an institution.
excerpt:
... in the case of a law enacted by a state legislature
applicable not only to elections to state offices, but also to the selection
of Presidential electors, the legislature is not acting solely under the
authority given it by the people of the State, but by virtue of a direct
grant of authority made under Art. II, 1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution.
That provision reads: ``Each State shall appoint, in such
Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal
to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State
may be entitled in the Congress . . . .'' Although we did not address the
same question petitioner raises here, in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.
S. 1, 25 (1892), we said: ``Art. II, 1, cl. 2 does not read that the
people or the citizens shall appoint, but that each State shall..."
MCPHERSON v. BLACKER, 146 U.S. 1 October 17, 1892
The Supreme Court rules that state law allows legislatures to determine how electors are chosen
excerpt:
...the appointment and mode of appointment of electors
belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States...
[Under the Fourteenth Amendment] If presidential electors are appointed by the legislatures, no discrimination is made; if they are elected in districts where each citizen has an equal right to vote, the same as any other citizen has, no discrimination is made.
And as the state is fully empowered to fill any vacancy
which may occur in its electoral college, when it meets to give its electoral
vote, we find nothing in the mode provided for anticipating such an exigency
which operates to invalidate the law. [146 U.S. 1, 42] We repeat
that the main question arising for consideration is one of power, and not
of policy, and we are unable to arrive at any other conclusion than that
the act of the legislature of Michigan of May 1, 1891, is not void as in
contravention of the constitution of the United States, for want of power
in its enactment.
Allowing the manual recounts to proceed in an expeditious manner, rather than imposing an arbitrary seven-day deadline, is consistent not only with the statutory scheme but with prior United States Supreme Court pronouncements.
The legislature authorized the use of electronic tabulating
equipment to expedite the tabulating process and to eliminate the possibility
of human error in the counting process, not to create a technical obstruction
which defeats the rights of qualified voters.
excerpt:
§ 5. If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
SEC. 4.
(a) To assure that the right of citizens of the United
States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of race or color, no
citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local
election because of his failure to comply with any test or device...
(c) The phrase "test or device" shall mean any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.
(d) For purposes of this section no State or political subdivision shall be determined to have engaged in the use of tests or devices for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color if (1) incidents of such use have been few in number and have been promptly and effectively corrected by State or local action, (2) the continuing effect of such incidents has been eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable probability of their recurrence in the future.
This story explains why Gore probably did not
know that campaign money was raised during the Buddhist Temple visit, how
the "Internet" claim was the result of lazy reporting by Wired Magazine,
how his supposed claiming of credit for unearthing the Love Canal incident
was a Washington Post misquote, and how a misquote of Erich Segal in the
Tennessean led to the remark that he and Tipper were the models for Love
Story.