Bush V. Gore

Josh Hanlon January 11th, 2013 CLN4U-01 Mr. Currie legal philosophy Research Essay Bush vs. Gore Why The Votes Should Have Been Counted Bush vs. Gore was described as a contr everywheresial election to say the least. The votes in several Florida counties were put up into question as to whether they should be counted or non. In a classless Election every legal votes must be counted. The main melodys around this issue were Article 2, scratch 1 of the report, the interpretation of the fitting protective covering article and mental confusion around right to vote deadlines during the Recount. This process was exacerbated by the lack of impartial in effect(p)ices and secretary of state.The initial argument surrounding this issue is Article 2, Section 1 of the temperament. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, In presidential elections, each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof whitethorn direct, the electors to which the State is entitled. That being said 3 justices, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas all argued that Florida violated this there argument set a lot of emphasis on the word legislature. Meaning to say that there is a difference between the State, who is empowered to appoint its own electors and that own States legislature.Furthermore, this Article of the Constitution is completely out of the Supreme courts jurisdiction in the circumstances. The Supreme Court should have got nothing to do with matters of state law in between the State and their own Legislature. Also, the Florida Supreme Court held that a legal vote may include any ballot from which it is reasonably possible to finalize the pull in intent of the voter, whether or not the chad had been completely dawdlered through, which is consistent with the law of the clear legal age of the States.Chief rightness Rehnquist in his opinion argued that this interpretation was so ridiculous and not mirrored with Florida legislation, that it violated Artic le 2. He claimed that because most counties use punch cards that tell you to clearly punch your ballot no sensible person could count a vote that wasnt clearly punched all the way through. (Geoffrey R. St matchless, Equal vindication? )The Florida Election Code states that no vote shall be decl bed invalid if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter, also a 60 year old Florida Law fountain states that must give statutes relating to elections a construction in favor of the citizens right to vote, and the intention of the voters should break away when counting ballots (Constitution of the State of Florida, As Revised in 1968) after hearing this, the other 6 Justices think that the Florida Supreme Court decision was in long established precedent and said it didnt evening raise a question under Article 2 of the Constitution.In simpler terms, stating that all of those votes were legal and that the quantitys set were satisfactory to determine which votes should and s hould not be counted. Onto the Equal Protection article, the Supreme Court basically contradicts themselves on this matter. After stating the vote standards set by the Florida Supreme Court didnt violate Article 2, they continued on to state that it violates the Equal Protection clause because the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but even within a single county (Geoffrey R.Stone, Equal Protection? ). What is startling is that the Florida Constitution states, The intention of the voters should prevail when counting ballots meaning that if there is any intention the vote should be counted, and if this wasnt precise enough for the Supreme Court why did they vote to uphold it on the Article 2, Section 1 vote? If the Supreme Court required a uniform standard for counting and sex act votes in Florida, why does it not need a uniform standard for voting?Is the fact that punch card voting has a sufficiently higher chance of ha ving your vote not counted compared to computer voting where there is a bare minimum chance of your votes not being counted violating the Equal Protection Clause as well? Or is it the fact that punch card counties are more commonly in low income counties, who tend to vote Republican (Al Gore)? All of these things ould be seen as discriminatory or not equal as well as the non-uniform standard for counting, but if the Supreme Court has decided that the separate standard is in violation then in thought the entirely Election should be rendered unconstitutional and put to an end, correct? To continue, no it should not be put to an end. The Supreme Court should have request a stay on the Recount until a uniform standard was put in set up for all of the Florida Counties and they should have ordered that every state have a uniform standard for Recounts for rising elections.The Supreme Court made a Pragmatic but Unlawful decision in voting for the violation of the Equal Protection Claus e which led to the stoppage of the 2000 Florida Recount. (Bo Li, Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 3). This goes without mentioning the fact that Bushs state of Texas had a uniform voting standard which allowed anything to be counted in the scenario of a recount including a dimpled chad. This means that Governor Bush sign in a bill that let any vote with slight intent be counted in the process of a Recount, yet is arguing that intent of a voter is an unconstitutional argument.This is hypocritical and shows a lack of character, if Bush truly believes in the Constitution he should be letting all the legal votes be counted to see if he actually won the establishment of the United States. If Bush truly cared about the simple uniform standards for Recounting, he should have ordered for a stay until uniform standards were set in place. Instead he argued the entire Recount unconstitutional and the 5-4 majority (5 Republican Judges-4 Democratic Judges) decided that there was no reason to Recount possibly legal votes when it had a chance of harming Bushs chance to become Prime Minister.Legal analysts from all over the Country explained it as the Justices trying to make a pragmatic decision by putting an end to this controversy, turns out it backfired on them. (Geoffrey R. Stone, Equal Protection? ) The third point to be explained in this case is the ongoing controversy over voting deadlines and how the ever so bright Secretary of State in Florida Katherine Harris thoughts were constantly being controlled by Bush advisors. Katherine Harris (and Friends) made it very clear that they would ot be accepting votes after a certain deadline, which leftover no time for the original recount. All these votes had to be stamped and signed to be considered legal votes. This left the Democratic Party frantically trying to recount votes and get them stamped and in on time. When she ruled that if votes were not stamped and signed they could not be sure, the Democratic Party argued that ton s of Military votes could not be counted because they were very rarely stamped and signed. In the US there is no voting law that states Military Votes can be accepted with no signature or stamp.This obviously led to an uproar from Republicans (Who most military votes get casted for) because it was just unethical for the Democrats to take away illegal votes for the Republicans. What the Republicans fail to realize is that taking away Florida citizens legal votes because you are scared of losing is also unethical. The Democrats later changed their minds and told the Secretary to reconsider the Military votes and give them special consideration. (Joseph I. Lieberman, Military Ballots chastity a Review)There are a few other factors I would like to add to perspective ahead closing my argument, in Florida the Republican swayed Secretary of State Katherine Harris put 20 Thousand people on the Voter Purge list. A Large group of these people had never done anything wrong, in cross an Afr ican-American Pastor could not vote because his name was similar to that of a hardened criminal in Florida (HBO Documentary, Recount). The most interesting fact of all was that the 3 Judges who voted for Bush in both instances (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) were all considered Republican judges.In the last 30 years at the Supreme Court the 19 Cases involving the Equal Protection Clause concerning laws against race, elderly, and other minorities they voted a perfect 19 for 19 to uphold the Equal Protection Clause. Yet, the one case involving Politics and the party they are associated with they for some strange reason voted against it with very little reasoning. (Geoffrey R. Stone, Equal Protection? ) If thats not Politics in Black Robes, what is. In Conclusion, Legal votes in Florida were not counted when they should have een. The various ideas such as the proper vote in Article 2, Section 1, the contradiction in terms and unlawful voting on the Equal Protection Clause and the confusing deadlines regarding votes were all examples of how things can be exacerbated by impartial Judges and Secretary of States. The votes in Florida should have been recounted after a uniform standard was put in place similar to the one in Texas and the real results of the 2000 Election should have been deciphered.All else aside, the whole United States should have a uniform voting, counting and recounting standard to eliminate all this confusion in the future. Bibliography http//www. leg. state. fl. us/statutes/index. cfm? mode=constitution&submenu=3 http//www. nytimes. com/2000/11/20/us/counting-vote-absentee-ballots-military-ballots-merit-review-lieberman-says. hypertext markup language? pagewanted=all&src=pm http//fathom. lib. uchicago. edu/1/777777122240/ http//www. oycf. org/Perspectives2/9_123100/bush_v1. htm HBO Documentary, Recount