High Court Sets Aside Fla. Ruling
In setting aside a Florida state court ruling that permitted hand recounts to be added to Florida's official presidential vote tally, the U.S. Supreme Court added more uncertainty to the most uncertain election of modern times.
The justices, in a unanimous seven-page opinion on Monday, said they were unclear about key points of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, and sent the case back to the state high court for further proceedings.
"This is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present" by George W. Bush's appeal, the justices said.
Because the Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of the historic case, the practical impact of its action remained unclear.
But the Bush camp hailed the ruling as a win for them. Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, speaking for Bush, said the nation's high court had returned the case to the state courts, to be reviewed along the lines of "precisely what we argued."
The Gore camp downplayed the significance of the Supreme Court opinion. Gore attorney Ron Klain said he viewed the court's action as "a neutral development."
CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen says the decision does not signal the end of Gore's legal options. He points out that the case before the high court was limited to pre-certification issues only and may not have strong impact on cases still pending in Florida, which relate to post-certification issues.
"So if a judge believes Al Gore should get some help in the contest phase, I am not sure the Supreme Court decision is any legal barrier to a judge doing that here," Cohen says.
But, adds Cohen, "Clearly it's not what the Gore camp wanted, and clearly it is what the Bush camp wanted."
Within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling, Judge N. Sanders Saul sent word that his own ruling on Gore's case for hand recounts in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties would be delayed while he tries to determine whether the ruling has any impact on the case before him.
The Florida Supreme Court had extended the certification deadline by 12 days until Nov. 26 so hand-counted votes could be included in the final tally.
Under that ruling, Bush, the Texas governor, was certified the victor in Florida by 537 votes out of six million cast, down from the 930-vote lead he held over Gore after the original Nov. 14 deadline.
The Supreme Court said in its opinion that there was "considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds" for the state court decision.
Specifically, the justices said they were unclear about the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the state Constitution as "circumscribing the legislature's authority" under the U.S. Constitution.
Second, the high court said it was unclear as to the consideration given by the Florida Supreme Court to a federal law that prescribes changes in law after he election.
At The U.S. Supreme Court Click here for audio excerpts from Friday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the Florida election recount. Click here for a complete transcript of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing. You'll need Adobe Acrobat to read the transcript. |
The Supreme Court ruling comes just three days after lawyers for Bush and Gore battled in a historic 90-minute session before the justices. The Supreme Court has never before addressed a case about an unresolved presidential election.
Bush's lawyers argued that the Florida Supreme Court decision changed the rules after the Nov. 7 election, in violation of the federal law.
The Bush team also cited the U.S. Constitution, which says that a state may appoint its electors "in such a manner as the legislature may direct." They charged the Florida Supreme Court unconstitutionally usurped the powers of the legislature.
Gore's lawyer, Laurence Tribe, disagreed, saying the ruling makes sure that all the votes would be counted, and that the federal courts should not second-guess the Florida Supreme Court interpretation of state law.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only court member during arguments to raise the possibility of sending the case back to the state court for clarification.
The ruling was handed out by the court's public affairs staff. The justices did not even announce it from the bench, where they were hearing arguments in a case about whether the police may arrest people for traffic offenses that carry only a fine.