| In the opinion, adequate precedent was cited to look at equity issues involved in voting under the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court was not mainly interpreting law in its superceded opinion, but applying equity considerations in mandating a standardless recount. However, even the dissents acknowledged that the lack of standards was a problem, but denied the urgency of taking over the case to cure it. Instead, they suggested that waiting to see if it worked itself out in Florida, and, if it didn't, then SCOTUS could take a look. The counter- argument was partially contained in the clincher: the Florida legislature intended to avail themselves of the "safe harbor", and therefore there was a deadline to contend with. Since the issue of a standard would have required further litigation in Florida, and might have dropped things in the lap of SCOTUS anyway, there was some urgency in settling things. Remember, the legislature has the absolute right to set a deadline for contesting elections........ |
