Presidential Election Cases George W. Bush, et al. v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.
A. Petitioner's stay application raised three issues for the Court's consideration:
1. Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred in establishing new standards for resolving presidential election contests that conflict with legislative enactments and thereby violate Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which provides that electors shall be appointed by each State “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred in establishing post-election, judicially created standards that threaten to overturn the certified results of the election for President in the State of Florida and that fail to comply with the requirements of 3 U.S.C. § 5, which gives conclusive effect to state court determinations only if those determinations are made “pursuant to” “laws enacted prior to” election day.
3. Whether the use of arbitrary, standardless and selective manual recounts to determine the results of a presidential election, including post-election, judicially created selective and capricious recount procedures that vary both across counties and within counties in the State of Florida, violates the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Note: The above questions were taken directly from the petitioner's Emergency Application For a Stay of Enforcement of the Judgment Below.
A. A stay is an order to halt proceedings. When asking Justice Kennedy to stay the
manual recounts that were underway in Florida, the Petitioner offered several criteria
governing when a Justice should grant a stay, including:
(1) there is “a reasonable probability that four Members of the Court will consider
the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari,” Graves v. Barnes, 405
U.S. 1201, 1203 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers);
(2) there is “a fair prospect that five Justices will conclude that the case was
erroneously decided below,” Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U.S. 1301, 1304 (1988)
(Kennedy, J., in chambers); and
(3) it is likely that irreparable injury will result if a stay is denied. Id.;
California v. American Stores Co., 492 U.S. 1301, 1304-07 (1989) (O’Connor, J.,
in chambers).
In addition, in appropriate cases, the Justice may “balance the equities to determine whether the injury asserted by the applicant outweighs the harm to other parties or to the public.” Lucas, 486 U.S. at 1304.
A. Audiotapes of the arguments can be heard at most major news sites, including ABC, C-SPAN, and MSNBC.
Transcripts of the arguments are also being made available December 11 on the Supreme Court's new web site at www.supremecourtus.gov. (Direct link)
