Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
| Decision Date | 04 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | 00836 |
| Citation | 148 L.Ed.2d 366,121 S.Ct. 471,531 U.S. 70 |
| Parties | GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD et al.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court of the State of Florida interpreted its elections statutes in proceedings brought to require manual recounts of ballots, and the certification of the recount results, for votes cast in the quadrennial Presidential election held on November 7, 2000. Governor George W. Bush, Republican candidate for the Presidency, filed a petition for certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court decision. We granted certiorari on two of the questions presented by petitioner: whether the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, by effectively changing the State's elector appointment procedures after election day, violated the Due Process Clause or 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the decision of that court changed the manner in which the State's electors are to be selected, in violation of the legislature's power to designate the manner for selection under Art. II, §1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution. 531 U.S. ____ (2000).
On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Governor Bush had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent Democrat Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., had received 2,907,351, a margin of 1,784 in Governor Bush's favor. Under Fla. Stat. §102.141(4) (2000), because the margin of victory was equal to or less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount occurred. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory for Governor Bush. Vice President Gore then exercised his statutory right to submit written requests for manual recounts to the canvassing board of any county. See §102.166. He requested recounts in four counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade.
The parties urged conflicting interpretations of the Florida Election Code respecting the authority of the canvassing boards, the Secretary of State (hereinafter Secretary), and the Elections Canvassing Commission. On November 14, in an action brought by Volusia County, and joined by the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, Vice President Gore, and the Florida Democratic Party, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the statutory 7-day deadline was mandatory, but that the Volusia board could amend its returns at a later date. The court further ruled that the Secretary, after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a, could exercise her discretion in deciding whether to include the late amended returns in the statewide certification.
The Secretary responded by issuing a set of criteria by which she would decide whether to allow a late filing. The Secretary ordered that, by 2 p.m. the following day, November 15, any county desiring to forward late returns submit a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying a later filing. Four counties submitted statements and, after reviewing the submissions, the Secretary determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline. On November 16, the Florida Democratic Party and Vice President Gore filed an emergency motion in the state court, arguing that the Secretary had acted arbitrarily and in contempt of the court's earlier ruling. The following day, the court denied the motion, ruling that the Secretary had not acted arbitrarily and had exercised her discretion in a reasonable manner consistent with the court's earlier ruling. The Democratic Party and Vice President Gore appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. That court accepted jurisdiction and sua sponte entered an order enjoining the Secretary and the Elections Canvassing Commission from finally certifying the results of the election and declaring a winner until further order of that court.
The Supreme Court, with the expedition requisite for the controversy, issued its decision on November 21. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, Nos. SC00_2346, SC00_2348, and SC00_2349 (Nov. 21, 2000), App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a. As the court saw the matter, there were two principal questions: whether a discrepancy between an original machine return and a sample manual recount resulting from the way a ballot has been marked or punched is an "error in vote tabulation" justifying a full manual recount; and how to reconcile what it spoke of as two conflicts in Florida's election laws: (a) between the time frame for conducting a manual recount under Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000) and the time frame for submitting county returns under §§102.111 and 102.112, and (b) between §102.111, which provides that the Secretary "shall _ ignor[e]" late election returns, and §102.112, which provides that she "may _ ignor[e]" such returns.
With regard to the first issue, the court held that, under the plain text of the statute, a discrepancy between a sample manual recount and machine returns due to the way in which a ballot was punched or marked did constitute an "error in vote tabulation" sufficient to trigger the statutory provisions for a full manual recount.
With regard to the second issue, the court held that the "shall _ ignor[e]" provision of §102.111 conflicts with the "may . . . ignor[e]" provision of §102.112, and that the "may _ ignor[e]" provision controlled. The court turned to the questions whether and when the Secretary may ignore late manual recounts. The court relied in part upon the right to vote set forth in the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution in concluding that late manual recounts could be rejected only under limited circumstances. The court then stated: "[B]ecause of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy _ ." App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. The court thus imposed a deadline of November 26, at 5 p.m., for a return of ballot counts. The 7-day deadline of §102.111,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bassett v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc.
...is a question of law, and the statutory interpretation of the Nebraska Supreme Court controls. Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd. , 531 U.S. 70, 76, 121 S.Ct. 471, 148 L.Ed.2d 366 (2000) (finding federal courts defer to state court interpretations of state statutes). This Court has rev......
-
PG Publ'g Co. v. Aichele
...to prescribe the manner in which Pennsylvania's Presidential electors will be appointed is plenary. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000) ( per curiam ). Because “[t]his power is conferred upon the legislatures of the States by the Constitution of the United ......
-
Lanza v. Ashcroft
...vacating state court judgment and remanding for clarification). A recent example occurred in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70, 78, 121 S.Ct. 471, 148 L.Ed.2d 366 (2000). In that case, a dispute arose over the deadline for county canvassing boards to submit their 2000 ......
-
U.S. v. Fernandez-Antonia
...federal courts defer to state courts' interpretation of their own statutes. See, e. g., Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 76, 121 S.Ct. 471, 148 L.Ed.2d 366 (2000) (per curiam) ("As a general rule, this Court defers to a state court's interpretation of a state statute."......
-
Table of Cases
...392 (Fla. 2006), 1580 Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648(1983), 586 Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 121 S.Ct. 471, 148 L.Ed.2d 366 (2000), Page 1664 Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996), 183-84, 400, 931, 942, 946......
-
THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
...to the Florida Supreme Court for clarification, citing Minnesota v. National Tea Co. as authority. Bush v. Palm Beach Cry. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 78 (2000) (per curiam). Nonetheless, rather than viewing the remand as inquiring into the state-or-federal nature of the decision, one coul......
-
The Equal Protection Clause
...(Scalia, J., concurring). [534] See Rambo, supra note 526, at 325 n.1479. [535] See generally Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 76-78 (2000) ("in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" means that this exclusive legislative power cannot be circumscribed by th......
-
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions
...Legislature to direct the manner of choosing electors.").25. See infra Sections V.a-V.b.26. See Bush v. Palm Beach Cty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 77 (2000) (per curiam) (questioning "the extent to which the Florida Constitution could, consistent with [the Presidential Electors Clause], '......