You are here:About>News & Issues>US Government Info
About.comUS Government Info

US Supreme Court Hears Recount Appeal

Part 4: The Decision
 More of this Feature
• Part 1: Recounts Halted
• Part 2: In The Balance
Part 3: If Congress Objects
 
 Join the Discussion
"What is your opinion of the court's decision and of the high court's place in the electoral system?"
POST YOUR OPINION
 
  Related Resources
• Supreme Court Info
• The Constitution
• Last time in court
• Electoral Flunks Test
• Electoral College
• EC Votes by State
• Pro Electoral College 
• Why 3rd Parties?
• Who ARE the Electors?
 
 From Other Guides
• 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 Sup. Ct. Be Fair?
• Back off FL Legislature!
• Court Decision of 12/12

 
 Elsewhere on the Web
Florida Legislature
Florida Supreme Court
Fla. Elections Div.
United States Code
US Supreme Court
 
 

Dateline: 12/12/00

In a late-night decision, a divided US Supreme Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision that had ordered recounts of undervote ballots in all Florida counties.

The courts unsigned "per curiam" decision carried the opinion of seven justices that the recounts as ordered by the Florida court suffered from constitutional problems. However, four Justices wrote dissenting opinions regarding possible remedies in the case.

"Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the Dec. 12 date will be unconstitutional ... we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed,'' the court said in the 7-2 per curium section of its decision.

The court continues, "It is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.''

A majority of the Justices also suggested that in moving to select its own slate of electors, the Florida Legislature made an order requiring new recounts something that, "could not be part of an appropriate remedy."

According to Gore campaign legal advisor Laurence Tribe, the Supreme Court had created "a hurdle too high," in requiring the Florida Supreme Court to address the constitutional issues in an impossibly short period of time.

In a blistering dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "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."

Stevens was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter.

Justice Souter expressed the opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court was not even justified in considering the case.

"The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ___ (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida’ s attempt to recount all undervote ballots," wrote Souter, who continued, "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 following the procedure provided in 3 U. S. C. §15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision."

Justice Breyer agreed, writing, "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."

Stressing constitutional separation of powers between state and federal government as a basis for her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote, "The extraordinary setting of this case has obscured the ordinary principle that dictates its proper resolution: Federal courts defer to state high courts’ interpretations of their state’ s own law. This principle reflects the core of federalism, on which all agree."

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy did not write separate opinions, but were counted in the unsigned 7-2 per curium opinion.

As of late Tuesday, the Gore legal team was still considering the Supreme Court's complex decision and no statement from the Vice President was expected until Wednesday, Dec. 13.

• Read The Complete Decision of the US Supreme Court

Here are two great resources related to this story:

 

Subscribe to the Newsletter
Name
Email

From Robert Longley,
Your Guide to US Government Info.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Newsletters & RSSEmail to a friendSubmit to Digg
 All Topics | Email Article | | |
Advertising Info | News & Events | Work at About | SiteMap | Reprints | HelpOur Story | Be a Guide
User Agreement | Ethics Policy | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy©2008 About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.