Bush vs. Gore - best background?

[UltraVires]

@RTFirefly

You might want to clarify what you mean by ‘clause 2’ of Article 2, Section 1. My copy of the Constitution doesn’t break Article 2, Section 1 down into smaller units, other than the usual grammatical stuff of sentences and paragraphs.

Unless you take a clause to be a major part of a sentence, in which case “in a President of the United States of America” seems to be the closest thing. I don’t know how much weight the Supremes put on “in a President of the United States of America” but I hope it wasn’t much.

And nether Sentence 2 nor Paragraph 2 of Article 2, Section 1 seem to be any more relevant than that.

ETA: Having just read Article 2, Section 1 all the way through (excluding the parts voided by amendments), I can’t see anything relevant. Not of debatable persuasiveness, just not anything seemingly relevant.

[QUOTE=The Pertinent Part]
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…
[/QUOTE]

bolding added. If SCOTUS believes that Presidential electors are NOT being appointed in the manner that the legislature directed, but the legislature is being usurped by the state courts, doesn’t it now present a federal question?

A question that is not implicated by the local dog catcher election?

[RTFirefly]

The real weakness with ‘intent of the voter’ was that there was nothing it could do with Palm Beach County, where it was clear beyond the shadow of a statistical doubt* that well over a thousand voters who had intended to vote for Gore, and thought they had voted for Gore, were misled into voting for Buchanan due to the design of the butterfly ballot.

But because it was impossible to say which specific voters had meant to vote for Gore, and which few were intentionally splitting their ballots, voting for Pat Buchanan for President while voting for Democratic Congressional candidates further down, the system could do nothing to rectify this mass misappropriation of votes, which sufficed to swing the election by itself.

*When I say ‘statistical’ I’m not joking: this was the topic of several papers presented at the 2001 Joint Statistical Meetings.

[RTFirefly]

@jtgain

bolding added. If SCOTUS believes that Presidential electors are NOT being appointed in the manner that the legislature directed, but the legislature is being usurped by the state courts, doesn’t it now present a federal question?

A question that is not implicated by the local dog catcher election?

Sure it does. But, IIRC, it has to go clearly beyond the normal degree of freedom a court has to interpret statutes and precedents. The Supreme Court can’t just intervene in a state law case anytime it feels that while there were arguments on both sides, the state court chose what it regards as the inferior argument. If it can do that, then there’s really no point in having state courts; it might as well be one unified court system, because you can appeal that sort of thing from one level of the same court system to the next.

[Saint_Cad]

@RTFirefly

Sure it does. But, IIRC, it has to go clearly beyond the normal degree of freedom a court has to interpret statutes and precedents. The Supreme Court can’t just intervene in a state law case anytime it feels that while there were arguments on both sides, the state court chose what it regards as the inferior argument. If it can do that, then there’s really no point in having state courts; it might as well be one unified court system, because you can appeal that sort of thing from one level of the same court system to the next.

IANAL but I believe you are wrong. If there is a Federal issue, the Federal Courts have jurisdiction ESPECIALLY if the constitutionality of the state law is at issue.

[UltraVires]

@RTFirefly

Sure it does. But, IIRC, it has to go clearly beyond the normal degree of freedom a court has to interpret statutes and precedents. The Supreme Court can’t just intervene in a state law case anytime it feels that while there were arguments on both sides, the state court chose what it regards as the inferior argument. If it can do that, then there’s really no point in having state courts; it might as well be one unified court system, because you can appeal that sort of thing from one level of the same court system to the next.

I agree if we are talking about a purely state law. For example, if Wyoming passed a law saying it was illegal to walk dogs on a public sidewalk, then it would fully be a Wyoming question as to whether such and such sidewalk was actually “public.” No federal implications here.

But when the federal constitution specifically says that Presidential electors are to be appointed in a manner directed by a state legislature, shouldn’t a federal court be the judge as to whether the legislature’s will has been thwarted?

I might agree with you if the constitution said, “in accordance with state law” or some other such phrase. Then a state court would have judicial review over the legislature. But in this instance, the federal constitution specifically gives the state legislature alone the power to appoint electors.