Presidential Election Cases Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, et al.
William H. Haynes, Connie Mendez, Marnee Mendez, Bert Carrier, et al.
Article II grants state legislatures the preeminent role in the appointment of electors,
and 3 U.S.C. § 5 imposes a limitation on retroactive lawmaking. The Florida Supreme
Court’s judicial lawmaking violated both these provisions simultaneously. This Court
should vindicate Petitioner’s and Amici’s rights under Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 and
3 U.S.C. § 5.
The American Civil Rights Union
Because of the “plain” language of the Constitution that “admits of no
doubt in interpretation” in giving control of the presidential election laws in
Florida to the Florida “legislature,” the Amicus submits that this Court should
rule that the Florida Supreme Court acted outside the bounds of the Constitution and
strike down its revisions of Florida law. This conclusion is supported by prior decisions
of this Court, and by the American philosophy of political responsibility for political
decisions. Then, having struck down the unconstitutional actions of the Florida Supreme
Court, this Court should recognize that its own jurisdiction is then exhausted, and
conclude the matter with no other action.
The State of Alabama, the Attorney General of Alabama, and the Secretary
of State of Alabama
Because the right to vote is a fundamental right, the constitutionality of state election
procedures rests on whether the procedures are fundamentally fair. Fundamental fairness
requires election officials to refrain from changing the rules for counting ballots after
an election to alter the outcome. Fundamental fairness also requires each State to
establish - before an election - objective and meaningful standards for counting ballots
and adhere to those standards after the election to protect the First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights of both voters and candidates. Adherence to these guarantees of
fundamental fairness requires special deference to the authority of legislatures to
establish rules for counting votes before an election rather than allowing court to create
retroactively rules for resolving post-election disputes. Because the decision of the
Supreme Court of Florida violated these requirements of due process and fundamental
fairness in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States, this
Court should reverse that decision.
In Support of Respondent Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, et. al
The
American Civil Liberties Union
Petitioner’s assertion that the Florida Supreme Court usurped the constitutional
authority of the state legislature to direct the manner in which presidential electors
shall be chosen ignores the fact that the Florida Legislature exercised that authority in
this case by imposing a set of conflicting instructions. Presented with that conflict, the
Florida Supreme Court did what courts in this country do every day: it attempted to
reconcile the legislature’s conflicting instructions by applying neutral canons of
statutory construction. Whether one agrees or disagrees with its result, that judicial
undertaking cannot be regarded as a usurpation of the legislative role without calling
into question every act of statutory construction.
The States of Iowa, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Rhode Island
Although the presidential election is unquestionably important to the people of this
nation, upholding the basic principles of federalism is equally important and perhaps
could have longer lasting effects on this nation than the decision as to who will be our
next president. This Court should follow well-recognized principles of comity and
federalism and respect the decision of the Florida Supreme Court as a binding
interpretation of Florida law, regardless of whether it agrees with the substance of the
Florida court’s analysis. To do otherwise would plunge this Court into the province
of the state judiciary, in substantial derogation of the basic principles of federalism
which have guided this country since its inception.
In Support of Neither Party
The Florida Senate and House of Representatives
The Court should rule that Questions 1 and 2 are not justiciable because their resolution
lies in the hands of the Florida Legislature or, if it does not act, the Congress. If this
Court nonetheless reaches those questions and concludes that the election decisions below
deviated from pre-existing law, then the Court should order those deviations to be
corrected before December 12, in which case the Electors will be determined by the choice
of the voters under those pre-existing rules. If those deviations cannot be corrected by
December 12, then it will become necessary for the Florida Legislature to exercise its
authority to appoint Electors to comply with its constitutional duty to assure Florida is
represented in the Electoral College.
Coalition for Local Sovereignty
The Florida Supreme Court erred in its interpretation of federal law on two points. The
U.S. Constitution does not give individuals the right to vote for president, or
presidential electors. The method of choosing electors is vested exclusively with the
States. The Constitution guarantees the right to vote for Congress but not Presidential
electors. The Fourteenth Amendment does not include the right to vote. The Florida Supreme
Court was in error when it ruled that the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act superceded State law. Because Congress exceeded its authority in passing the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, State law remains controlling with respect to
the deadline for filing and certifying absentee ballots.
Disenfranchised
Voters in the USA
Due to the exceptionally small margin which is within the margin of error of the machines
themselves, a hand count of all ballots in Florida [is] essential to preserving the
franchise of every citizen who has voted in this nations’ November 2000 election. It
is inconceivable that a manual hand count, although cumbersome and time consuming, can be
so long in its duration to amount to a violation of due process rendering it
unconstitutional. In the event that this Court finds such delays would harm the Republic
without regard to Constitutional issues, it is respectfully requested that there be a new
vote in the State of Florida, following, if necessary, laws that may be written by its
State legislature to correct defects in existing Florida State Election laws, or such
other remedies as this Court may deem appropriate. We nonetheless most respectfully and
most vehemently pray that this Court should make every effort to include the votes of all
Florida voters, whether by hand count or by a new voter election, so that [the] democratic
process will go forward and that the franchise of all voters shall be preserved.
Navigation
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, et al.
Case Main Page
FAQs about this case
Amicus briefs
Merit briefs
Opinions
Related links for this case
residential
Election Home
George W. Bush, et al. v. Albert
Gore, Jr., et al.
Related Links
