Realities Behind The Florida Myths, Part One
By Gary Krasner (06/10/04)
Not a day passes in which Democrat activists don’t complain about the 2000 Presidential election. While Iraq or the economy are election variables determined by ongoing events, the Florida election debacle appears to be one constant that will be heard right up to November. Intended to outrage and mobilize voters, this red meat issue about a supposed “stolen election” has become the mother of all urban legends, and a myth ripe for exploding.
Democrats supply only catch phrases— such as, “Gore was selected by the Supreme Court”, or “Gore won the popular vote”—because lengthy explanations might reveal what really occurred in Florida. Democrats also complained of supposed uncounted votes in specific counties, as well as racially targeted voter exclusions, such as the “felon purge”, police check points, closed voter precincts, and the like. I’ll address them all in future installments over the coming months. But here, I’ll examine what the Supreme Court actually did.
The biggest Democratic rant is that the US Supreme Court had split along political lines to hand Bush the election. For example, on September 13, 2003, former President Bill Clinton told the crowd in Iowa that in 2000, five justices of the Supreme Court “thought it was time for the minority to have the White House, they stopped counting votes in Florida, and they just gave it to them.”
“They stopped counting votes”? Well, liberal journalist William Saletan for Slate.com (see below) insists that Democrats not only wanted the votes RE-counted, but also RE-interpreted. Big difference. But beyond that, a bare majority of the Supreme Court didn’t actually hijack the Florida election. Most Democrats would be surprised to learn that 7 Justices thought that by altering critical and well-considered election deadlines, the Florida Supreme Court had indeed amended Florida election law AFTER the vote had taken place—a violation of Federal Election law.
It’s important to note at this point that it has long been a settled question that elections be held on one day, and that deadlines for processing the results and permitting possible challenges and litigation must be strictly adhered to. Same day voting denies any voters the role of ‘kingmakers’, and tight schedules for post-election processing makes it more difficult for vote tabulators to manipulate the tally. In fact, it’s assumed there will be all sorts of tampering and manipulation by partisan election workers. But adherence to post-election deadlines prevents and mitigates opportunities for vote tampering.
To continue, the high court’s close 5-4 split was merely over the remand order (i.e., instructions for the lower court to dispose or proceed with the case). But the Justices in the minority were left with no practical suggestions, as was reflected in their disparate opinions on the remand issue. Even the two justices in the first minority (7-2) seemed resigned to the fact that for all practical purposes, there was insufficient time to proceed with the (Florida Supreme) court-ordered recount and with it, meet the deadline to furnish the results to the Electoral College. Indeed, none of the justices even offered an amended schedule for the recount to proceed.
Ironically, it was Al Gore himself who was responsible for aborting the “recount” he desired: Recall that Gore succeeded in extending the post-election ‘Protest’ period at the expense of ‘Contest’ period, thereby short-circuiting the time required for recounts, contests, and challenges later on. Florida’s compressed Protest period (prior to certification) was intentionally designed that way to mitigate post-vote count manipulations. But under Florida law, it’s easier to pick up more votes during the Protest phase than the Contest phase. So, Gore convinced a judge to extend the Protest phase a few days, based upon a dubious pretext that the overseas ballots hadn’t arrived yet. Against statute and precedent, Gore managed this maneuver despite the fact that Florida’s election law permits recounts solely when it can be shown that the tabulation process failed, and not because of voter error or confusion. Yet the basis of Gore’s claim was the latter.
When that time had elapsed, Gore attempted to extend the period again. Judge Terry Lewis ruled against him. But the Florida Supreme Court reversed Terry’s decision—without even waiting to be petitioned by Gore’s lawyers! (The Florida high court later intervened on behalf of Gore a second time without being petitioned—to reverse trial Judge Sauls’ ruling to exclude contested ballots.). If anyone tried to hijack that election, it was the Florida Supreme Court—whose Justices were appointed by Democrats—who seemed to be working on behalf of the Gore campaign. They extended the original Protest period for Gore, thereby leaving insufficient time for secondary Protest and Contest periods following the recount that Gore wanted.
Aside from these illegal maneuvers to contort the post-election timetable, what the public found most repugnant was the sight of the Democrat-dominated canvassing boards—having foreknowledge of exactly how many votes Gore needed to win—interpreting voter intention using subjective criteria, and modifying that criteria at various points when it looked like Gore would need more votes than he appeared to be getting. This was precisely what Florida’s post-election vote processing deadlines were designed to prevent.
William Saletan observed in, “Electoral Knowledge” (on November 29, 2000 in http://slate.msn.com/id/94258/):
“Even if all the ballots were assembled before a team of neutral inspectors, the winner couldn't be objectively resolved. When the number of ballots requiring interpretation exceeds the number of votes separating the candidates, determining who won is no longer a matter of investigation. It's a matter of interpretation.”
Gore’s petition was to “recount” votes solely in three Democratic-dominated counties where he was expected to gain votes. And he didn’t want to saddle them with confining rules: Arguing for Gore, attorney David Boies said ballots should be deemed as votes for Bush or Gore based on “the intent of the voter; not how the voter manifests his or her intent”(!) Gore steadfastly refused to accept or even suggest a uniform criteria for interpreting disputed votes, until he was forced to do so just prior to Judge Sauls’ ruling, which by then was too late to help him. Thus, here was Gore’s team cynically determined to win by way of vote skimming, while at the same time engaged in demagoguery on behalf of supposed disenfranchised voters!
The Supreme Court ultimately based their reversal of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections clause, in order to obtain a 7-2 consensus.. While many legal pundits felt that ‘Equal Protections’ was not the most relevant basis for reversal, it was certainly the most fitting with which to hoist Gore on his own petard: “Let every vote count.”
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Krasner
