This will be the first of three articles on the FL Supreme court decision published by the the WA Post, the San Jose Mercury News and the Chicago Trib. It appears the Post has a Democratic perspective, the Trib a Republican one and the Mercury News a more neutral stance. From that basis, its interesting to see the conclusions at which each arrives.
EDITORIAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinion of the Mercury News
Recount revival
Florida justices put emphasis on voters' rights
HAND recounts will count, and the Florida Supreme Court decision that said so, Tuesday night, was a victory for voters and for democracy, not just for Democrats.
That's because the opinion upholds a long history of Florida case law that puts the emphasis on making every vote matter, not on a narrow interpretation of voting rules. If election officials can tell how you meant to vote, your ballot counts, the court said. ``The right of people to cast their votes is the paramount concern overriding all others.'' Amen, we say.
The ruling boosted Al Gore's bid to win Florida, but by no means guaranteed him a victory. A different decision could have killed his hopes; this one breathed life into his recently diminishing chances, but hardly ended those of George W. Bush.
The unanimous decision, which united justices known for their conservative views with those who have tended to be more liberal, struck a compromise between counting votes and bringing closure. That's also a compromise between what will help Gore and what favors Bush, whether or not the court thought in such terms.
You never would have known that from Bush spokesman James Baker. A man not known for understatement, he used his harshest language yet to denounce the court for overreaching its authority. He blasted the decision as unfair and predicted that the Florida Legislature may undo it. Some thought he meant by passing new laws, others by naming a Republican slate of electors even should Gore win. That could lead anywhere.
Yet had the court simply wanted to help Gore, it never would have produced a decision that permits hand counting only through Sunday, a severe constraint for Gore's hopes to close Bush's lead. The deadline could exclude hundreds of thousands of ballots in Miami-Dade County and possibly thousands of others in Broward County. Palm Beach County officials said they can finish on time.
Gore picked up 266 new votes in hand counts Tuesday, coming within 670 votes of Bush. But it is anything but certain that he can take the lead by the end of the weekend.
The decision could hurt Gore in another way. His camp had asked the court for guidelines on what to include and what to throw out during the hand count -- for example, Gore wanted the court to lay down the law on so-called ``dimpled'' ballots and the many varieties of chad. No such guidance was included in the 42-page decision.
Thus despite Baker's furious criticism, the decision benefits Bush in two subtle ways. Federal law sets a Dec. 12 deadline for all states to resolve disputed elections. By limiting the counting period, the court left Bush more than two weeks to contest results which may put Gore in the lead. And in setting no guidelines for the recounts, the court left plenty of room for the Texas governor to argue that the process was inconsistent and arbitrary, since each county will follow its own rules.
In one significant way, however, the decision refutes a wildly inaccurate claim Republicans have been making in Florida. Baker and other Bush supporters have insisted that hand recounts invite theft of the entire election. They say the counting process is wildly out of control -- a chaotic circus.
You can watch CNN and see for yourself that this is not true. The count continues with observers from both parties watching like hawks. It will go on through Sunday -- with no Thanksgiving holiday for volunteer vote-counters doing a thankless job.
The only thing wildly out of control at this point is Baker's ever escalating rhetoric, as he sows seeds of bitterness that may keep either candidate from becoming an effective president.
© 2000 The Mercury News. The information you receive online from The Mercury News is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright-protected material. Mercury News privacy policy |
