# USSC Election Thread
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ussc-election-thread/43978
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 4, 2000, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ussc-election-thread/43978 "2000-12-04T18:27:25Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2000, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ussc-election-thread/43978/1 "2000-12-04T18:27:25Z")
I’m not all that surprised that the one time Stoidela has not run right out and started another election thread is when the result is not beneficial to Gore.
To summarize, the USSC basically ruled that the SCOFLAw decision pushing the certification back was to vague for them to rule on. They sent the case back down to them to clarify how they made their decision. While the SCOFLA writes it’s clarification, they will have in mind the fact that if they stray from laws written before the election, the USSC will just overturn them.
My read on this is that the USSC did a little back room negotiating among themselves. I think they felt a 9-0 decision was important to the country, and sending it back down to give the SCOFLA another chance to get it right was the only way a 9-0 decision was going to come out of this case.
I think the USSC agrred in advance to two future outcomes if they see this case again. If the SCOFLA can write a clarification that obeys the laws written by the FL legislature and the US Constitution, then the USSC will rule 9-0 in favor of Gore if it reaches them again. Of course, since this isn’t possible, they will either have to reverse themselves or they will get slapped down 9-0 by the USSC.
This is of course, only my partisan take on the matter.
Any other thoughts?
---
### Author:  [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2000, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ussc-election-thread/43978/2 "2000-12-04T18:49:00Z")
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 531 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2000) 1
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
* * *
No. 00836
* * *
GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH
COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 4, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court of the State of Florida interpreted
its elections statutes in proceedings brought to require
manual recounts of ballots, and the certification of the
recount results, for votes cast in the quadrennial Presi-dential
election held on November 7, 2000. Governor
George W. Bush, Republican candidate for the Presidency,
filed a petition for certiorari to review the Florida Su-preme
Court decision. We granted certiorari on two of the
questions presented by petitioner: whether the decision of
the Florida Supreme Court, by effectively changing the
State’ s elector appointment procedures after election day,
violated the Due Process Clause or 3 U. S. C. §5, and
whether the decision of that court changed the manner in
which the State’ s electors are to be selected, in violation of
the legislature’ s power to designate the manner for selec-tion
under Art. II, §1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitu-tion.
531 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2000).
On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential
election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that
Governor Bush had received 2,909,135 votes, and respon-dent
Democrat Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., had re-•2 BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BD.
Per Curiam
ceived 2,907,351, a margin of 1,784 in Governor Bush’ s
favor. Under Fla. Stat. §102.141(4) (2000), because the
margin of victory was equal to or less than one-half of one
percent of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount
occurred. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin
of victory for Governor Bush. Vice President Gore then
exercised his statutory right to submit written requests for
manual recounts to the canvassing board of any county.
See §102.166.
He requested recounts in four counties:
Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade.
The parties urged conflicting interpretations of the
Florida Election Code respecting the authority of the
canvassing boards, the Secretary of State (hereinafter
Secretary), and the Elections Canvassing Commission. On
November 14, in an action brought by Volusia County, and
joined by the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, Vice
President Gore, and the Florida Democratic Party, the
Florida Circuit Court ruled that the statutory 7-day dead-line
was mandatory, but that the Volusia board could
amend its returns at a later date.
The court further ruled
that the Secretary, after “considering all attendant facts
and circumstances,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a, could exer-cise
her discretion in deciding whether to include the late
amended returns in the statewide certification.
The Secretary responded by issuing a set of criteria by
which she would decide whether to allow a late filing. The
Secretary ordered that, by 2 p.m. the following day, No-vember
15, any county desiring to forward late returns
submit a written statement of the facts and circumstances
justifying a later filing. Four counties submitted state-ments
and, after reviewing the submissions, the Secretary
determined that none justified an extension of the filing
deadline. On November 16, the Florida Democratic Party
and Vice President Gore filed an emergency motion in the
state court, arguing that the Secretary had acted arbitrar-ily
and in contempt of the court’ s earlier ruling.
The•Cite as: 531 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2000) 3
Per Curiam
following day, the court denied the motion, ruling that the
Secretary had not acted arbitrarily and had exercised her
discretion in a reasonable manner consistent with the
court’ s earlier ruling. The Democratic Party and Vice
President Gore appealed to the First District Court of
Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme
Court. That court accepted jurisdiction and sua sponte
entered an order enjoining the Secretary and the Elections
Canvassing Commission from finally certifying the results
of the election and declaring a winner until further order
of that court.
The Supreme Court, with the expedition requisite for
the controversy, issued its decision on November 21. Palm
Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, Nos. SC002346,
SC002348, and SC002349 (Nov. 21, 2000), App. to Pet.
for Cert. 1a. As the court saw the matter, there were two
principal questions: whether a discrepancy between an
original machine return and a sample manual recount
resulting from the way a ballot has been marked or
punched is an “error in vote tabulation” justifying a full
manual recount; and how to reconcile what it spoke of as
two conflicts in Florida’ s election laws: (a) between the
time frame for conducting a manual recount under Fla.
Stat. §102.166 (2000) and the time frame for submitting
county returns under §§102.111 and 102.112, and (b)
between §102.111, which provides that the Secretary
“shall . . . ignor[e]” late election returns, and §102.112,
which provides that she “may . . . ignor[e]” such returns.
With regard to the first issue, the court held that, under
the plain text of the statute, a discrepancy between a
sample manual recount and machine returns due to the
way in which a ballot was punched or marked did consti-tute
an “error in vote tabulation” sufficient to trigger the
statutory provisions for a full manual recount.
With regard to the second issue, the court held that the
“shall . . . ignor[e]” provision of §102.111 conflicts with the•4 BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BD.
Per Curiam
“may . . . ignor[e]” provision of §102.112, and that the
“may . . . ignor[e]” provision controlled. The court turned
to the questions whether and when the Secretary may
ignore late manual recounts. The court relied in part upon
the right to vote set forth in the Declaration of Rights of
the Florida Constitution in concluding that late manual
recounts could be rejected only under limited circum-stances.
The court then stated: “Because of our reluc-tance
to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude
that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to
fashion a remedy . . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. The
court thus imposed a deadline of November 26, at 5 p.m.,
for a return of ballot counts. The 7-day deadline of
§102.111, assuming it would have applied, was effectively
extended by 12 days. The court further directed the Secre-tary
to accept manual counts submitted prior to that
deadline.
As a general rule, this Court defers to a state court’ s
interpretation of a state statute. But in the case of a law
enacted by a state legislature applicable not only to elec-tions
to state offices, but also to the selection of Presiden-tial
electors, the legislature is not acting solely under the
authority given it by the people of the State, but by virtue
of a direct grant of authority made under Art. II, §1, cl. 2,
of the United States Constitution. That provision reads:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Represen-tatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Con-gress
. . . .”
Although we did not address the same question petitioner
raises here, in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25
(1892), we said:
“[Art. II, §1, cl. 2] does not read that the people or the
citizens shall appoint, but that ‘ each State shall’ ; and•Cite as: 531 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2000) 5
Per Curiam
if the words ‘ in such manner as the legislature thereof
may direct,’ had been omitted, it would seem that the
legislative power of appointment could not have been
successfully questioned in the absence of any provi-sion
in the state constitution in that regard. Hence
the insertion of those words, while operating as a limi-tation
upon the State in respect of any attempt to cir-cumscribe
the legislative power, cannot be held to op-erate
as a limitation on that power itself.”
There are expressions in the opinion of the Supreme Court
of Florida that may be read to indicate that it construed
the Florida Election Code without regard to the extent to
which the Florida Constitution could, consistent with
Art. II, §1, cl. 2, “circumscribe the legislative power.”
The opinion states, for example, that “[t]o the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral proc-ess, those laws are valid only if they impose no ‘ unreason-able or unnecessary’ restraints on the right of suffrage” guaranteed by the state constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The opinion also states that “because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens’ right to vote . . . .” Ibid.
In addition, 3 U. S. C. §5 provides in pertinent part:
“If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted
prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the elec-tors,
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 pur-suant
to such law so existing on said day, and made at
least six days prior to said time of meeting of the elec-tors,
shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the•6 BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BD.
Per Curiam
counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Con-stitution,
and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the
ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State
is concerned.”
The parties before us agree that whatever else may be the
effect of this section, it creates a “safe harbor” for a State
insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes
is concerned. If the state legislature has provided for final
determination of contests or controversies by a law made
prior to election day, that determination shall be conclu-sive
if made at least six days prior to said time of meeting
of the electors. The Florida Supreme Court cited 3
U. S. C. §§110 in a footnote of its opinion, App. to Pet. for
Cert. 32a, n. 55, but did not discuss §5. Since §5 contains
a principle of federal law that would assure finality of the
State’ s determination if made pursuant to a state law in
effect before the election, a legislative wish to take advan-tage
of the “safe harbor” would counsel against any con-struction
of the Election Code that Congress might deem
to be a change in the law.
After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme
Court, we find “that there is considerable uncertainty as to
the precise grounds for the decision.” Minnesota v. Na-tional
Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551, 555 (1940).
This is sufficient
reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal
questions asserted to be present. See ibid.
“It is fundamental that state courts be left free and
unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitu-tions.
But it is equally important that ambiguous or
obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as
barriers to a determination by this Court of the valid-ity
under the federal constitution of state action. In-telligent
exercise of our appellate powers compels us
to ask for the elimination of the obscurities and ambi-guities
from the opinions in such cases.” Id., at 557.•Cite as: 531 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2000) 7
Per Curiam
Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the
Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as
circumscribing the legislature’ s authority under Art. II,
§1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the
Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. §5. The
judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore
vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Please forgive the formatting, I threw some spaces in there somewhat randomly to make it easier to read. If my spaces somehow change the legal meaning of the opinion, please accept my apoligies:)