Disputed Presidential Election of 2000 - U.
Publié le 02/05/2013
Extrait du document


«
counts.
At oral arguments on November 20, the justices seemed to be most interested in one issue: At what point did allowing re-counts risk making Florida too late toparticipate in the electoral college vote? Gore’s lawyers, led by David Boies, argued that the state had until December 12 to pick its electors, which allowed plenty oftime for the re-counts.
Electors from each state would meet on December 18 to cast their votes.
The next day the court ruled unanimously for Gore and granted a five-day extension for manual re-counts, until Sunday, November 26, at 5 PM.
“The will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions, should be our guiding principle in election cases,” the justices wrote.
The next day, the Bush campaign askedthe United States Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the Florida high court ruling.
The U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in early December.
The re-count process was slow, tedious, and fraught with disputes.
Each county used a different standard in evaluating undervotes.
Workers struggled, sometimes withmagnifying glasses, to divine the intent of the voters.
Lawyers for each candidate and representatives for each party were on hand to protest decisions that they didnot like.
On November 22, the Miami-Dade re-count descended into chaos.
When county officials attempted to move to a smaller workroom, Republican protesterspounded angrily on doors and windows because the smaller room limited the number of observers.
The county canvassing board stopped the re-count, saying it wasimpossible to finish by the deadline.
However, it denied that the protests had influenced the decision.
It was a blow to Gore because he had already seen a net gain ofabout 150 votes in that county.
In Palm Beach County, canvassers struggled to meet the 5 PM deadline on November 26, but it was clear they would fall short by a few hours.
The board asked Harris to extend the deadline until 9 AM the next day, but she refused.
Instead she took the set of returns compiled before the re-count.
That evening, in the state Capitol’s cabinet room, Harris certified the election results and declared Bush the winner of Florida, with 2,912,790 votes to Gore’s 2,912,253.
It was a difference of just 537votes but it was enough to give Bush Florida’s 25 electoral votes and thus the presidency.
Gore’s lawyers immediately filed a legal contest in state court to protest thecertified results.
V THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
With certification, Bush had taken a big step toward securing a presidential victory.
But now he faced a huge decision: whether to continue his U.S.
Supreme Court casechallenging the Florida high court’s decision to extend the original certification deadline and allow manual re-counts.
If the Supreme Court upheld the deadlineextension, Bush would likely be at the mercy of any new decisions from the Florida court resulting from Gore’s contest of the certified tally.
But Bush, believing that theFlorida Supreme Court should not have extended the certification deadline, decided to continue to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
On December 1, the Supreme Court heard 90 minutes of oral argument from both sides.
Bush attorneys, led by Theodore Olson, contended that the Florida courteffectively rewrote the state’s election laws by extending the certification deadline—something that only the state legislature could do.
Gore lawyers argued that in suchan extraordinarily close race, a re-count was the only way to ensure that the will of the people was represented.
The justices asked many questions and left legalexperts with the strong impression that they remained as divided over the matter as the rest of the country.
Meanwhile in Florida’s capital of Tallahassee, the Gore team was contesting the election results before Leon County Circuit Judge Sanders Sauls.
Its main goal was tosecure the re-count of about 14,000 disputed ballots from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties that they said could change the outcome of the election.
Gore attorneyshad little confidence that they could win their fight in front of Sauls, a Republican appointee.
They decided to move through the trial as quickly as they could so theycould file their appeal with the Florida Supreme Court, which had proven itself more sympathetic.
Bush lawyers wanted to slow down the proceedings.
They wanted tomove the calendar as close as they could to December 12, the deadline for the state to choose its electors.
Sauls impounded the ballots in question and had themshipped to Tallahassee in a Ryder truck, an odyssey covered live by television cameras traveling overhead in helicopters.
On Monday, December 4, the U.S.
Supreme Court set aside the Florida Supreme Court’s decision extending the certification deadline.
In essence, the justices asked theFlorida court to explain its ruling.
That same day, Judge Sauls ruled against Gore’s bid for further hand re-counts, asserting that Gore failed to show any “reasonableprobability” that additional counting would change the outcome of the election.
Gore’s situation was looking bleak, although another pair of critical court cases seemed to offer real, if slender, hope.
These cases were lawsuits in Martin and Seminolecounties, which charged that county election supervisors had allowed local Republican officials to illegally complete unfinished absentee ballot applications.
VI THE DISPUTE ENDS
The Florida Supreme Court agreed to hear Gore’s appeal of Sauls’s ruling.
But with the December 12 deadline looming larger, the court allowed just a day for filingbriefs and one hour of oral arguments on December 7.
Facing the Florida high court for a second time, Boies argued that under state law the intent of the voter is all-important.
The only way to determine intent was to do a manual re-count of the disputed ballots.
Bush’s lawyer, Barry Richard, argued that the manual re-count wasunjustified because no machine errors had been reported .
On Friday, December 8, judges in the Martin and Seminole county cases ruled that although irregularities existed in local election procedures, the ballots cast stillaccurately reflected the will of the voters.
But the same day, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, ordered a statewide manual re-count of about 42,000undervote ballots.
The court also awarded Gore 383 votes from the previous re-counts in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties that Secretary of State Harris hadrefused to include in her certification, cutting Bush’s lead from 537 to 154.
Bush’s legal team immediately asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to halt the re-count until it could file an appeal.
The next day the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a staystopping the re-count until it could hear the case.
In deciding to hear the appeal, the conservative wing of the court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, signaled strongly thatBush was likely to prevail.
Scalia wrote that “a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner [Bush] has a substantialprobability of success.”
The long months of campaigning and the extraordinary five-week fight for Florida all came down to 90 minutes of oral argument in front of the U.S.
Supreme Court onDecember 11 in George W.
Bush and Richard Cheney v.
Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Bush’s lawyer, Theodore Olson, argued that time was running out for the state to choose its electors by December 12.
He also said that the manual re-counts authorized by the Florida Supreme Court violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.Specifically, when counties used different standards to evaluate disputed ballots, they were treating voters differently.
Boies, Gore’s lawyer, again argued that intent ofthe voter is paramount in Florida law and the only way to determine that intent was to manually re-count the disputed ballots.
The next evening, the court effectively ended the 2000 presidential election.
In a 5 to 4 vote, it ruled that there would be no further re-counting of the disputed Floridaballots.
The majority opinion stated that using multiple methods to re-count votes in various counties was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protectionclause.
In addition, the opinion stated that it was impossible to come up with a legally acceptable standard of how to manually re-count the ballots by the December 12deadline.
In issuing its decision, the Court split along partisan lines.
The five justices who found in favor of Bush were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and JusticesSandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Scalia.
They were all nominated by Republican presidents and were generally considered the moreconservative members of the Court..
»
↓↓↓ APERÇU DU DOCUMENT ↓↓↓
Liens utiles
- Sujet : « L’an 2000 suscite de multiples réactions et manifestations ; en ce qui vous concerne quelle signification lui donnez-vous ? »
- Les inégalités entre les hommes et les femmes dans le monde du travail dans les années 1960 et 2000 en France
- Le redressement fragile de l'Etat russe depuis 2000.
- Projet de loi constitutionnelle relatif à la durée du mandat du Président de la République (7 juin 2000) Le texte proposé est le Projet de loi constitutionnelle relatif à la durée du mandat du Président de la République en date du 7 juin 2000.
- Abdou Diouf par Loly Clerc Successeur de Léopold Sédar Senghor, président du Sénégal depuis 1983 jusqu'en 2000, il est considéré comme l'un des " Sages " du continent africain.