I might add that the Supreme Court left only 16 days after the deadline for the entire election to be contested. Given the closeness of this election, and the way in which it would be contested, that’s probably not enough time.
The nature of the contest would probably be on three fronts - a demand that hte military votes be properly counted, questioning the right of the Democrats to have hand counts only in four districts that favor them, and a review of the ‘dimpled chad’ ballots by a bipartisan review panel.
This last thing could conceivably last a long time, especially if the Gore camp gets to appeal decisions, because they’d probably appeal every single one in an attempt to stall the process.
So how will the Supreme Court decision look if Gore wins the handcount by 100 votes, and the contest of the election can’t be completed by the 12th?
How could anything possibly stop disenfranchisement for the next presidency now that everyone realises that not only does your vote not count, its probably not even counted.
It is ingenious at best to argue that manual recounts ‘disenfranchise’ voters. Voters are disenfranchised when their participation in the process is prevented, not when they lose an election. The Supreme Court of Florida was talking about voters being disenfranchised when the results of a federal election in Florida end up uncertified by the time that the next step in the federal process is reached.
Mr. Bush’s point about manual recounts allowing subjective decision-making is potentially correct, especially in the absence of easily arbitrated rules about what will be counted as a ‘vote’. But it doesn’t result in ‘disenfranchisement’ of the other voters. You aren’t disenfranchised because you lose, even if you lose because votes don’t get counted right. Or is anyone suggesting that the fact the first vote tally was improperly counted by the machines would have disenfranchised voters for Mr. Gore had the second machine count changed the outcome? Of course not.
So, in answer to the questions of Scylla, NO the Secretary of State cannot refuse to accept late returns from manual recounts in an attempt to ‘protect’ some group of Florida voters. No reasonable interpretation of what the court said would have allowed that.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the Republican appeal concerning recounts. As I understood it from what I just heard on MSNBC, their decision will hinge on two Federal issues: 1) the process for determining electors must come from the state legislature, and 2) the process must be established prior to the election. If they determine these rules to have been violated, they would deem that the Florida Supreme Court did indeed overstep its authority. This is what I (and others) have been arguing, myself admittedly not very eloquently.
They may very well rule against the Republicans. But does this not at least dispel the notion that any argument against the Florida Supreme Court’s decision is completely without merit? This case has merit enough to get the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention.
I wonder what effect it will have should the certification proceed in Bush’s favor on Sunday–or what the nature of the arguments will be in that circumstance.
Responding to the OP, what from I can learn from Bush supporters, such as my brother and my barber, the Fla Supreme Court exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily by setting the 5 PM Sunday November 26, 2000 deadline. “It just picked that deadline out of mid-air”, they say. Neither of them is a lawyer, and neither one of them would accept the argument that the Court has the authority to set such a deadline as part of its equity powers. I am a lawyer, and I’ve read and agree with the Florida SC’s decision, and I understand the equity powers concept, but non-laywers don’t necessarily buy it.