Document: 531 U.S. 70121 S.Ct. 471148 L.Ed.2d 366 GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONERv.PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD et al. No. 00-836 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES December 4, 2000 ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO FLORIDA Per Curiam. 1 The Supreme Court of the State Florida interpreted its elections statutes in proceedings brought to require manual recounts ballots, and certification recount results, for votes cast quadrennial Presidential election held on November 7, 2000. Governor George Bush, Republican candidate Presidency, filed a petition certiorari review decision. We granted two questions presented by petitioner: whether decision Court, effectively changing State's elector appointment procedures after day, violated Due Process Clause or 3 U.S.C. § 5 that court changed manner which electors are be selected, violation legislature's power designate selection under Art. II, §1, cl. 2 United States Constitution. ____ (2000). On 8, 2000, day following election, Division Elections reported Bush had received 2,909,135 votes, respondent Democrat Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., 2,907,351, margin 1,784 Bush's favor. Under Fla. Stat. §102.141(4) (2000), because victory was equal less than one-half one percent cast, an automatic machine occurred. resulted much smaller Bush. Gore then exercised his statutory right submit written requests canvassing board any county. See §102.166. He requested four counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade. parties urged conflicting interpretations Election Code respecting authority boards, Secretary (hereinafter Secretary), Canvassing Commission. 14, action Volusia County, joined Beach County Board, Democratic Party, Circuit ruled 7-day deadline mandatory, but could amend returns at later date. further Secretary, "considering all attendant facts circumstances," App. Pet. Cert. 49a, exercise her discretion deciding include late amended statewide certification. 4 responded issuing set criteria she would decide allow filing. ordered that, p.m. 15, county desiring forward statement circumstances justifying Four counties submitted statements and, reviewing submissions, determined none justified extension filing deadline. 16, Party emergency motion state court, arguing acted arbitrarily contempt court's earlier ruling. denied motion, ruling not reasonable consistent with appealed First District Appeal, certified matter Court. That accepted jurisdiction sua sponte entered order enjoining Commission from finally certifying results declaring winner until court. expedition requisite controversy, issued 21. Bd. v. Harris, Nos. SC00_2346, SC00_2348, SC00_2349 (Nov. 21, 2000), 1a. As saw matter, there were principal questions: discrepancy between original return sample resulting way ballot has been marked punched is "error vote tabulation" full recount; how reconcile what it spoke as conflicts Florida's laws: (a) time frame conducting §102.166 (2000) submitting §§102.111 102.112, (b) §102.111, provides "shall _ ignor[e]" returns, §102.112, "may such returns. 6 With regard first issue, plain text statute, due did constitute sufficient trigger provisions recount. 7 second provision §102.111 . controlled. turned when may ignore recounts. relied part upon forth Declaration Rights Constitution concluding rejected only limited circumstances. stated: "[B]ecause our reluctance rewrite Code, we conclude must invoke equitable powers this fashion remedy ." 37a. thus imposed 26, p.m., counts. assuming have applied, extended 12 days. directed accept counts prior 8 general rule, defers interpretation statute. But case law enacted legislature applicable offices, also electors, acting solely given people State, virtue direct grant made 2, reads: 9 "Each shall appoint, Manner Legislature thereof direct, Number Electors, whole Senators Representatives entitled Congress 10 Although address same question petitioner raises here, McPherson Blacker, 146 1, 25 (1892), said: 11 "[Art. 2] does read citizens `each shall'; if words `in direct,' omitted, seem legislative successfully questioned absence constitution regard. Hence insertion those words, while operating limitation respect attempt circumscribe power, cannot operate itself." There expressions opinion indicate construed without extent could, "circumscribe power." states, example, "[t]o enact laws regulating electoral process, valid they impose no `unreasonable unnecessary' restraints suffrage" guaranteed constitution. 30a. states "[b]ecause intended facilitate suffrage, liberally favor citizens' Ibid. 13 In addition, pertinent part: 14 "If provided, fixed final determination controversy contest concerning judicial other methods procedures, least six days before meeting pursuant so existing said conclusive, govern counting provided Constitution, hereinafter regulated, far ascertainment appointed concerned." 15 us agree whatever else effect section, creates "safe harbor" insofar congressional consideration concerned. If contests controversies conclusive electors. cited 1_10 footnote opinion, 32a, n. 55, discuss §5. Since §5 contains principle federal assure finality wish take advantage counsel against construction might deem change law. 16 After find "that considerable uncertainty precise grounds decision." Minnesota National Tea Co., 309 551, 555 (1940). This reason decline asserted present. ibid. 17 "It fundamental courts left free unfettered interpreting their constitutions. equally important ambiguous obscure adjudications do stand barriers validity action. Intelligent appellate compels ask elimination obscurities ambiguities opinions cases." Id., 557. 18 Specifically, unclear circumscribing 2. accorded 5. judgment therefore vacated, remanded inconsistent opinion. It

Category: 8