1. Home
  2. News & Issues
  3. US Government Info

Bush Campaign's Supreme Court Appeal

Part 4: The Hearing
 More of this Feature
• Part 1: Legal Basis of the Bush Appeal
• Part 2: What Will the Supreme Court Hear?
Part 3: Why the Court Took the Case
Part 5: The Decision
Part 6: Text of Ruling
 
 Join the Discussion
"Given the extreme closeness of the current results, a federally supervised revote in ALL counties using that system would be the only fair way to deal with this."
WRITER89 
 
  Related Resources
Latest Election News
• Electoral College
Pro Electoral College 
If Florida Can't Vote
Supreme Court Info
 
 From Other Guides
• Cliffhanger!
Election Night Papers
• British Reaction
Canadian Reaction
Still Too Close
Houston - Problem
Eyes on Tallahassee 
Election Timeline
Newspapers React
Constitutional Law
The US Court System
Righting the Ship
Can the Court be Fair?
 
 Elsewhere on the Web
Florida Sec. of State
Florida Sup. Ct. Ruling
Fla. Elections Div.
United States Code
 
 

On Friday, Dec. 1, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court will, for the first time in its 210-year history, hear an appeal involving a presidential election. While the court will not decided who the next president will be, its decision may have precedent-setting impact on the outcome of Election 2000.

Audio Transcript of Supreme Court Hearing via CNN (RealPlayer)

The court will hear arguments on the George W. Bush campaign's appeal titled, Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board, challenging the Nov. 21 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court to allow hand recounts in Florida counties to continue.

Specifically, the court will hear arguments on two questions posed by the Bush campaign in its request to the Supreme Court to hear its appeal:

  • Whether post-election judicial limitations on the discretion granted by the legislature to state executive officials to certify election results, and/or post-election judicially created standards for the determination of controversies concerning the appointment of presidential electors, violate the Due Process Clause or 3 U.S.C. § 5, which requires that a State resolve controversies relating to the appointment of electors under “laws enacted prior to” election day. 

  • Whether the state court’s decision, which cannot be reconciled with state statutes enacted before the election was held, is inconsistent with Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution, which provides that electors shall be appointed by each State “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” 

In agreeing to hear the Bush campaign's appeal, the Supreme Court also asked attorneys for both sides provide answers to the following question:

  • What would be the consequences of this Court’s (U.S. Supreme Court) finding that the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida does not comply with 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5?

Section 5, of Title 3 U.S.C. (United States Code) states, in full:

Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

"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."

Legal Documents Involved (all are in .pdf format from Jurist)
Bush Campaign's petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
Supreme Court Order agreeing to consider the Bush appeal.
• Bush Campaign's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court
Gore Campaign's brief in opposition to  the Bush appeal.
Bush Campaign's reply brief to Gore's opposing brief.

Each side will be allowed a total 45 minutes for their presentation before the court.

In keeping with its tradition, the Supreme Court refused to allow television cameras into the courtroom during the hearing. The court did, however, agree to make audio tapes and written transcripts available as soon after the hearing as possible. Links to these documents will be provided here as soon as they are available.

"The day you see a camera roll into this courtroom, it will be rolling over my dead body." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

How might the Supreme Court rule in this case?
See: U.S. Supreme Court Hopes to Steady Election Ship
With the acceptance of two questions proposed by the Republicans, and the posing
of a third, the U.S. Supreme Court has, in effect, declared a near constitutional crisis over the selection of the next President. Law Guide Paul S. Reed, J.D., predicts the result.

Can the Supreme Court be Fair?
Bush supporters are claiming that the Florida Supreme court is biased since it is made up of politically-appointed judges.  But doesn't that mean the US Supreme Court is equally biased in favor of Bush?  About US Politics' Guide John Aravosis examines the issue.

Here are two great resources related to this story:

All are from About Guide to Legal Current Events Paul S. Reed, J.D. 

 

Subscribe to the Newsletter
Name
Email

About.com Special Features

What is a Recession?

Sure, we're all talking about it, but what, exactly, defines a recession? More >

Weird Breaking News

A daily look at some of the oddest (and dumbest) crimes around. More >