UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECEMBER 12th DECISON ON BUSH/GORE CASE ON VOTE RECOUNT IN FLORIDA.

(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1 Per Curiam

NOTICE:

This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________ No. 00–949 _________________

GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 12, 2000]

PER CURIAM.
I

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identi-fied in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n. 6).

The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabu-lation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the appli-

2 BUSH v. GORE
Per Curiam

cation as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. ___. The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ____ (per curiam) (Bush I). On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent, Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Governor Bush’ s margin of victory was less than “one-half of a percent . . . of the votes cast,” an automatic machine recount was conducted under §102.141(4) of the election code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’ s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the Novem-ber 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’ s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___–___ (slip. op., at 6–7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on re-mand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30–31).

On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and de-clared Governor Bush the winner of Florida’ s 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Florida’ s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 3 Per Curiam

County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. §102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to §102.168(3)(c), which provides that “[r]eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election” shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.

Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court af-firmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d. ____ (2000). The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gore’ s challenge to the results certified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board’ s determina-tion that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, “legal votes.”

The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’ s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“under-votes”). ___ So. 2d., at ___ (slip. op., at 22–23).

Noting the closeness of the election, the Court explained that “[o]n this record, there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt.” Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 35). A “legal vote,” as determined by the Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a ‘ clear indication of the intent of the voter. ’ ” Id., at ____ (slip op., at 25). The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Observing that the contest provi-sions vest broad discretion in the circuit judge to “provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances,” Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000), the Supreme Court further held

4 BUSH v. GORE Per Curiam

that the Circuit Court could order “the Supervisor of Elec-tions and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes . . . to do so forthwith, said tabulation to take place in the individ-ual counties where the ballots are located.” ____ So. 2d, at ____ (slip. op., at 38).

The Supreme Court also determined that both Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a net gain of 215 and 168 legal votes for Vice President Gore. Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 33–34). Rejecting the Circuit Court’ s conclusion that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the 215 net votes submitted past the November 26 deadline, the Su-preme Court explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts. As to Miami-Dade County, the Court concluded that although the 168 votes identified were the result of a partial recount, they were “legal votes [that] could change the outcome of the election.” Id., at (slip op., at 34). The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to include those totals in the certified results, sub-ject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount.

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. §5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protec-tion and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Pro-tection Clause.

II A

The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 5 Per Curiam

challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phe-nomenon. Nationwide statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately choosing no can-didate at all or some voter error, such as voting for two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot. See Ho, More Than 2M Ballots Uncounted, AP Online (Nov. 28, 2000); Kelley, Balloting Problems Not Rare But Only In A Very Close Election Do Mistakes And Mismarking Make A Difference, Omaha World-Herald (Nov. 15, 2000). In certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements.

This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nation-wide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.

B

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’ s power to select the manner for appointing electors is ple-nary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33.

History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens them-selves vote for Presidential electors. When the state leg-islature vests the right to vote for President in its people,

6 BUSH v. GORE Per Curiam

the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fun-damental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to re-sume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one per-son's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Vir-ginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remem-bered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debase-ment or dilution of the weight of a citizen’ s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).

There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respond-ents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount proce-dures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consis-tent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate. Much of the controversy seems to revolve around ballot cards designed to be perforated by a stylus but which, either through error or deliberate omission, have not been perforated with sufficient precision for a machine to count

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 7 Per Curiam

them. In some cases a piece of the card—a chad—is hang-ing, say by two corners. In other cases there is no separa-tion at all, just an indentation.

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not neces-sary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving elec-tion disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition.

The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Flor-ida’ s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circum-stances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.

The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the ma-chine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a per-son. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.

The want of those rules here has led to unequal evalua-tion of ballots in various respects. See Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 51) (Wells, J., dissenting)

8 BUSH v. GORE Per Curiam

(“Should a county canvassing board count or not count a ‘ dimpled chad’ where the voter is able to successfully dislodge the chad in every other contest on that ballot? Here, the county canvassing boards disagree”). As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the stan-dards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.

The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal.

This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment. An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368 (1963). The Court found a consti-tutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 9 Per Curiam

The State Supreme Court ratified this uneven treat-ment. It mandated that the recount totals from two coun-ties, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, be included in the certified total. The court also appeared to hold sub silentio that the recount totals from Broward County, which were not completed until after the original November 14 certifi-cation by the Secretary of State, were to be considered part of the new certified vote totals even though the county certification was not contested by Vice President Gore. Yet each of the counties used varying standards to determine what was a legal vote. Broward County used a more forgiving standard than Palm Beach County, and uncovered almost three times as many new votes, a result markedly disproportionate to the difference in population between the counties.

In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine.

This is not a trivial con-cern.
At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a ma-chine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indi-cia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the ma-chine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’ s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant

10 BUSH v. GORE Per Curiam

standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial proc-esses that were under way.

That brings the analysis to yet a further equal protec-tion problem. The votes certified by the court included a partial total from one county, Miami-Dade. The Florida Supreme Court’ s decision thus gives no assurance that the recounts included in a final certification must be complete.

Indeed, it is respondent’ s submission that it would be consistent with the rules of the recount procedures to include whatever partial counts are done by the time of final certification, and we interpret the Florida Supreme Court’ s decision to permit this. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 21 (slip op., at 37, n. 21) (noting “practical difficulties” may control outcome of election, but certifying partial Miami-Dade total nonetheless).

This accommodation no doubt results from the truncated contest period estab-lished by the Florida Supreme Court in Bush I, at re-spondents’ own urging. The press of time does not dimin-ish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees. In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court’ s decision raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together ad hoc teams comprised of judges from various Circuits who had no previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore, while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from objecting during the recount.

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protec-

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 11 Per Curiam

tion in election processes generally presents many com-plexities. The question before the Court is not whether local enti-ties, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop differ-ent systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide re-count with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitu-tional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections. The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. The problem, for in-stance, of the estimated 110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief Justice Wells called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 26 (slip op., at 45, n. 26).

Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be con-ducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after oppor-tunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable proce-dures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for

12 BUSH v. GORE Per Curiam

which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legisla-ture intended the State’ s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U. S. C. §5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any contro-versy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’ s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are consti-tutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (BREYER, J., dis-senting).

The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5, JUSTICE BREYER’ s proposed rem-edy— remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until Decem-ber 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropri-ate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

P.13 Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 13 Per Curiam

None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’ s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When con-tending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is re-versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Pursuant to this Court’ s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith. It is so ordered. END