|
US Supreme Court Hears Recount Appeal | |
|
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:
