For Petitioner George W. Bush
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision, which announced a new framework and timetable for resolving controversies over the presidential election results in that State, should be vacated because it does not comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5. The Florida Supreme Court, by arrogating to itself the authority to make new rules applicable to this election contest, also violated Article II of the Constitution, which invests the authority to regulate the manner of appointing presidential electors in state legislatures.

For Respondents Al Gore, Jr., and Florida Democratic Party
Petitioner attempts to convert the state law issues decided by the Florida court into questions of federal law under 3 U.S.C. § 5, Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in fact the Florida court applied garden variety principles of statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguities and reconcile conflicting provisions within the Florida Election Code. Even if federal law had something to say about the scope of state judicial authority to construe state legislation, which it does not, the decision below effected no “change” in Florida law “which cannot be reconciled with state statutes enacted before the election.”

For Respondent Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
The decision [by the Florida Supreme Court] utilized standard principles of statutory construction to alleviate the tension between a 1951 statute, which mandated the state certification of election results on the seventh day following an election, and a 1989 statute, which permitted later filed local returns to be included for certification. Since Florida law authorized manual recounts, and those recounts could take longer than seven days, the Supreme Court of Florida harmonized the conflict by setting a certification date - November 26, 2000 - that allowed each actor to complete his or her task: the Canvassing Board could count; the voter could be protected; the Secretary of State could certify; a dissatisfied candidate or voter could contest the election after certification. All of this was pursuant to statutes enacted prior to November 7, 2000.

For Respondent Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida
In this case, the Court confronts the frontier of federalism. The decision [by the Florida Supreme Court], construing Florida's election laws, is a matter of fundamental state interest. The conduct of local elections dictates the composition of state and local government, as well as it provides a mechanism for choosing federal representatives. As an interpretation of Florida general elections law, the court's decision applies to races other than the one at issue here. If this Court addresses the correctness of that decision, it risks impairing the balance between state and federal government that is unique and important in our system of government.

For Respondents Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State, and Katherine Harris, Laurence C. Roberts, and Bob Crawford, as Members of the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission in Support of Petitioner
The issue is solely whether the [Florida] supreme court created a body of law regarding the selection of Presidential Electors different from the law existing on November 7, 2000. The court’s opinion suggests that it did. If the Court decides that there was a change, and that the change violated federal law, the Court would determine that the Division properly issued its opinions in November 2000 in response to election officials’ inquiries; that those opinions were binding on the requesting elections’ officials; that no manual recount provision existed under Florida law to remedy voter errors; and that no right existed in a statewide contest to conduct a manual recount on a selected county basis. Finally, this Court should find that the Secretary properly exercised discretion in rejecting requests for post-certification submissions of additional vote counts other than those from overseas ballots received by the tenth day following the election.

Reply Brief of Respondents Al Gore, Jr., and Florida Democratic Party
Petitioner's reference to the possibility of direct legislative appointment of electors by the Florida Legislature raises a host of constitutional issues. Further it is not self-evident that such direct appointment is even available. Article II, §1, cl. 4 empowers Congress to "determine the Time of chusing the Electors." In 3 U.S.C. §1, Congress has set a uniform national date for this process, which in the year 2000 fell on November 7. There is no doubt that Florida made its choice on that date, although by a vote so close and under a counting process so flawed that the State's courts are still attempting to "ascertain[]," 3 U.S.C. §6, what that choice was. Accordingly, any state legislative attempt simply to appoint electors after the fact would appear to be federally preempted. See U.S. Const. Art. VI.

Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, et al.
Case Main Page
FAQs about this case
Amicus briefs & Merit briefs
Opinions

Presidential Election Home
George W. Bush, et al. v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.
Related Links

Supreme Court Preview Home | Briefs | Cases at a Glance | Case Highlights Cases of Interest to the School Community | Featured Cases | Subscribe to Preview | Related Program Events | Search | Links