There is no way of determining "the will of the people" under circumstances that are so close. The counting of dimpled chads cannot be superior; the counting of overvoted ballots is purely speculative; nationwide, there were too many allegations of fraud that were not completely investigated; it has been estimated that more than a hundred thousand didn't vote in the Florida panhandle due to the early call; and so on, and so on. All that is left is the reasonable resolution of the matter. For that, the SCOTUS decision was impeccable: the lack of standards, and inclusion of partial counts, was inequitable; and the deadline for the contest phase of the election was within the power of the legislature to set, according to the Constitution. Since the Florida legislature clearly intended that the contest end in time to take advantage of the "safe-harbor", and there was no time to remand and have the state courts deal with the equity issues in time for the deadline, there was nothing to do but allow certification.
It has been alleged that the SCOTUS would have come to a different conclusion had Gore been ahead. That is purely speculative, and, in fact, flies in the face of the fact that the decision, if properly understood, is consistent with the jurisprudence espoused by those associated with it. They read the Constitution as giving the legislature absolute discretion about the manner of selecting electors, in fact noting that even in the middle of an election the legislature could change the method of selection. Thus, the determination to conform to the "safe harbor" provision by terminating the contest period takes precedence over any equity considerations that might be alleged. Only during the contest period can voting equity be relevant, and, again, they site ample precedent for federal intervention in that area. All in all, it is a perfectly sound decision, and deferential to state authority in the form of the legislature........... |
