Bush v. Gore

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. The decision directly affected the result of the 2000 presidential election because it stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida to certify George W. Bush the winner for the State of Florida. With Florida's 25 electoral votes, Bush had enough electoral votes to win the Presidency.

Background

The election in question took place on November 7, 2000. Under the Electoral College system, each state conducts its own individual election for president. The winner of each state's election receives a number of "electoral votes". At the end of the nationwide ballot count, and recounts in Oregon and New Mexico, Gore led Bush 267–246 in the electoral vote. 270 votes were required for victory. It was uncertain who would win Florida's 25 electoral votes because the election in that state was so close. On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush had received 2,909,135 votes, and Gore had received 2,907,351, a margin of victory for Bush of 1,784 votes.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florida2000/11-21_fla_opinion.pdf Because the margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount occurred. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory for Bush—on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20001217pztimeline.asp

Related Topics:
November 7 - 2000 - Electoral College - President

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Florida election law{{fn|1}} allows a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. All four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However, Florida law also required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election,{{fn|2}} and several of the counties conducting manual recounts did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the 7-day deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary, after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide certification.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florida2000/11-14_leonruling.pdf Prior to the 5pm deadline on November 14, Volusia county completed its manual recount and certified its results. At 5pm, Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she was in receipt of the certified returns from all 67 counties, while Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting manual recounts.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showflorida2000.php?fileid=harris11-14

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Harris issued a set of criteria{{fn|3}} by which she would determine whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late filing. Four counties submitted statements, and, after reviewing the submissions, Harris determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, she would certify the results of the presidential election on Saturday, November 18, 2000.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florida2000/11-21_fla_opinion.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The first Florida Supreme Court decision (Harris I)

On November 16, Gore and Palm Beach filed suit to compel Harris to accept the amended returns, and on November 17 appealed the case to the Florida Supreme Court.{{fn|4}} On November 17, the Florida Supreme Court issued an injunction preventing Harris from certifying the election, pending a final ruling of the court. On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court, in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris (also known as Harris I) ordered Harris to accept the results of any manual recount certified before November 26 at 5pm.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There were two main issues:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Whether the county canvassing boards' authority to conduct manual recounts to correct "errors in the vote tabulation" extended to efforts to remedy situations where machines, though perhaps correctly functioning to detect properly marked ballots, did not count votes on certain ballots on which votes might be found under a manual inspection with an "intent of the voter" standard (Harris' had ruled that it did not); and
• How such recounts in the case at hand could be made to fit into the statutory scheme, which as Harris interpreted it contemplated a quick certification followed, if necessary, by an election contest during which a court (rather than the canvassing boards) would be empowered to correct errors

Regarding the first issue, the court ruled that, while Harris was generally entitled to deference in her interpretation of state laws, in this case the interpretation "contravene the plain meaning" of the phrase "error in the vote tabulation" and so must be overturned.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regarding the second issue, the court ruled that the statutory scheme must be interpreted in light of the Florida state constitution's declaration that "all political power is inherent in the people", with any ambiguities therefore construed "liberally". Preventing the canvassing boards from continuing to conduct recounts beyond the seven-day timeframe (specified in the law, but with ambiguity as to how firm it was intended to be), would "summarily disenfranchise innocent electors " and could not be allowed except unless the recounts continued for so long as to "compromise the integrity of the electoral process." The court ordered counties to submit returns by November 26, until which time the stay of certification would stand.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On November 22, Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, the Court rendered its decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000). The Court opinion remanded the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for a clarification as to whether the basis for their ruling was the Florida constitution or Florida statutes. The Court was concerned that if the basis of the ruling was the Florida constitution, which was not written by the Florida legislature, the ruling might be unconstitutional under Art. II, § 1, cl. 2.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Miami-Dade county canceled its manual recount on the ground that it could not complete the recount by November 26.http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20001217pztimeline.asp Gore sued to compel Miami-Dade to complete the recount, but lost. On November 26, Harris certified the Florida Election. She declared Bush the winner of the Florida election with 2,912,790 votes over Gore, who had 2,912,253—a margin of 537 votes.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showflorida2000.php?fileid=harris11-26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The second Florida Supreme Court decision (Harris II)

On November 27, Gore filed suit to contest the certified results of the election. The case was heard by Judge N. Sanders Sauls, who denied the requested relief on December 4. Gore appealed the case to the Florida Supreme Court. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gore v. Harris (also known as Harris II).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gore's appeal cited several instances claimed to involve the rejection of legal votes or the receipt of illegal votes, which are as follows, along with the Florida Supreme Court's disposition:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• The rejection of the results of a full manual recount completed by Palm Beach County only after the deadline set by Secretary of State Harris. The court ordered the results included.
• The rejection of the results of a partial manual recount carried out by Miami-Dade County. The court ordered the results included.
• The inclusion of the results of the original count from Nassau County, rather than the results of a later machine recount, which the county considered clearly erroneous. The court declined to overturn the county's decision.
• The rejection of Palm Beach County ballots which were determined in the manual recount not to contain votes. The court declined to overturn the county's decision.
• The rejection of "undervote" ballots in the portions of Miami-Dade County not included in the partial recount. Bush argued, first, that no further recounts were appropriate under state law, and, second, that any recounts should cover all ballots statewide and should be conducted as far as possible using a uniform standard. Gore argued that as the party filing the contest he was entitled to specify groups of ballots to be manually recounted, and that the law required such recounts to be performed if there was a reasonable chance that the election results would thereby be changed. The court split the difference: requiring a manual recount of undervotes, but not extending the order to other ballots, both as requested by Gore; extending the order to all counties, as requested by Bush; but providing that each county's canvassing board should conduct the recount under its own standards, rather than imposing uniformity.

Bush appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on December 9, and the Court issued an injunction stopping the statewide recount pending a final decision.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the court on December 11 by lawyers representing both sides. Due to the nature of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its opinion just 16 hours after hearing arguments. The Florida Supreme Court provided the requested clarifications on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board while the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore; the two cases were subsequently combined.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~