Opinion ID: 1704912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Recount Dilemma

Text: A unanimous Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1220 (Fla.2000), applied traditional rules of statutory construction to resolve several conflicts and ambiguities in the Florida Election Code (Code). The Court concluded that countywide manual recounts had been improperly cut off in the protest phase [5] by an advisory statement issued by the Florida Secretary of State, and we ordered that the counties must be given a commensurate window of opportunity in which to complete the manual recounts and submit supplemental returns. The United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment, [6] but this Court on remand reaffirmed our prior holding. [7] In Gore v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2000), a majority of the Florida Supreme Court authorized a manual recount of untabulated ballots in the contest phase. [8] To comport with due process and equal protection concerns, the Court ordered that the recount be conducted statewide and that the results be adjudicated by a single judge. I dissented because I felt that the recount, as formulated, lacked sufficient guidelines and could not be completed promptly and fairly. The United States Supreme Court on the first day of the recount, i.e., December 9, stayed the recount and at 10 p.m., December 12, ruled that additional guidelines were required. The Court further held that December 12 was a mandatory deadline under the Florida Election Code and that any recount extending beyond that date was violative of Florida law, thus foreclosing the possibility of a recount. [9] First, in my opinion, December 12 was not a drop-dead date under Florida law. In fact, I question whether any date prior to January 6 is a drop-dead date under the Florida election scheme. [10] December 12 was simply a permissive safe-harbor date to which the states could aspire. [11] It certainly was not a mandatory contest deadline under the plain language of the Florida Election Code (i.e., it is not mentioned there) or this Court's prior rulings. [12] Second, regardless of the safe-harbor date, I am not convinced that additional safeguards could have been formulated that would have satisfied the United States Supreme Court. Given the tenor of the opinion in Bush v. Gore, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000), I do not believe that the Florida Supreme Court could have crafted a remedy under these circumstances that would have met the due process, equal protection, and other concerns of the United States Supreme Court. [13]