Was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore (in December 2000) a mistake?

[Saint_Cad]

@UltraVires

But when the intent of the Legislature is unclear (as determined by the judicial branch), the state judicial process decides that intent. It is well-accepted that the Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Florida law unless its interpretation of the law or the law itself violates the federal constitution, in this case the 14th amendment “equal protection” provision.

Normally that would be right but in the case of a Presidential election, I think deference should be given to the Legislature as to how to interpret the election laws considering they are given the unique task of determining the method of choosing electors. Thus they should be the ultimate word on what those methods are.

Furthermore, I think there is an argument that election of electors may not necessarily fall under the same equal protection laws because it is an indirect election for President. Otherwise one could argue the nonsensical belief the entire Electoral College is unconstitutional because voters in small states have more “voting power” than those in large states.

But ultimately SCoFL failed in their duty of interpreting Florida law. After telling Harris that she had the right to accept or deny amended late certifications, she denied them all and then SCoFL (unhappy with Harris’ decision) in effect overruled themselves and extended it 12 days and then CHANGED IT AGAIN when the recounts weren’t finished. What SCoFL should have done is picked one path or the other. Either the state laws trump everything as per US Constitution and Harris certifies the returns on Nov 14th and that’s it OR every vote counts and the election isn’t over until they are all counted. If Florida misses out on safe harbor or even has to abstain from voting for President then too bad because the right to have your vote counted trumps everything else.

Instead they kept to a middle road and made it more of a cluster. THAT is why it should never have gone back to them. But of course that is only for this case and should not be a precedent.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Saint_Cad

Normally that would be right but in the case of a Presidential election, I think deference should be given to the Legislature as to how to interpret the election laws considering they are given the unique task of determining the method of choosing electors.

Sure - and the proper venue for determining what the legislature’s intent was and what that deference would mean was the Florida Supreme Court. Legislatures do not sit in judgment over the application of their acts; that’s what courts are for. If the courts get it wrong in the view of the legislature, their role is to amend the legislation.

[Saint_Cad]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Sure - and the proper venue for determining what the legislature’s intent was and what that deference would mean was the Florida Supreme Court. Legislatures do not sit in judgment over the application of their acts; that’s what courts are for. If the courts get it wrong in the view of the legislature, their role is to amend the legislation.

If that’s true, then how come SCoFL gave three different interpretations of the same state laws when coming up with deadlines? The Legislature had three different attempts?