'Bush V. Gore\r'

'Josh Hanlon January 11th, 2013 CLN4U-01 Mr. Currie police force Research Essay Bush vs. Gore: why The Votes Should Have Been Counted Bush vs. Gore was described as a contr oversial election to say the least. The votes in several Florida counties were put up into question as to whether they should be counted or non. In a parliamentary Election each(prenominal) legal votes must be counted. The main reasons around this issue were word 2, section 1 of the record, the interpretation of the decent security measure clause and mental confusion around ballot deadlines during the Recount. This growth was exacerbated by the neglect of impartial rightices and secretary of introduce.The initial argument surrounding this issue is Article 2, element 1 of the administration. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, â€Å"In presidential elections, each produce shall appoint, in much(prenominal) manner as the legislature in that respectof whitethorn direct, the electo rs to which the State is entit guide. ” That being said 3 justices, Rehnquist, Scalia, and doubting Thomas all argued that Florida violated this; there argument hardened a lot of emphasis on the password â€Å"legislature”. Meaning to say that there is a difference between the State, who is empowered to appoint its testify electors and that own State’s legislature.Furthermore, this Article of the Constitution is wholly out of the Supreme coquette’s jurisdiction in the circumstances. The Supreme cost should perplex nonhing to do with matters of state law in between the State and their own Legislature. Also, the Florida Supreme Court held that â€Å"a legal vote may implicate any ballot from which it is reasonably possible to locate the clean intent of the voter, whether or not the ‘chad’ had been completely cowmaned through, which is consistent with the law of the clear majority of the States”.Chief legal expert Rehnquist i n his opinion argued that this interpretation was so nonsense(a) and not mirrored with Florida legislation, that it violated Article 2. He claimed that because most counties use jab cards that grade you to clearly punch your ballot no sound person could count a vote that wasn’t clearly punched all the way through. (Geoffrey R. St wiz and only(a), Equal tax shelter? )The Florida Election Code states that â€Å"no vote shall be decl ared invalid if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter”, also a 60 year old Florida Law causality states that â€Å"must give statutes relating to elections a construction in favor of the citizen’s right to vote, and the intention of the voters should take to the woods when count ballots” (Constitution of the State of Florida, As Revised in 1968) later on hearing this, the different 6 Justices reason out that the Florida Supreme Court decision was in hanker established precedent and said it didnâ₠¬â„¢t unconstipated raise a question under Article 2 of the Constitution.In simplisticr terms, stating that all of those votes were legal and that the receiveds set were competent to determine which votes should and should not be counted. Onto the Equal security measures clause, the Supreme Court basically contradicts themselves on this matter. After stating the ballot ens international ampereles set by the Florida Supreme Court didn’t violate Article 2, they continued on to state that it violates the Equal security clause because â€Å"the modulars for accept or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but even within a single county” (Geoffrey R.Stone, Equal Protection? ). What is startling is that the Florida Constitution states, â€Å"The intention of the voters should prevail when counting ballots” meaning that if there is any intention the vote should be counted, and if this wasn’t precise enough for the Suprem e Court why did they vote to uphold it on the Article 2, Section 1 vote? If the Supreme Court requisite a uniform standard for counting and tattle votes in Florida, why does it not need a uniform standard for voter turnout?Is the fact that punch card voting has a sufficiently high happening of having your vote not counted compared to computer voting where there is a bare minimum chance of your votes not being counted violating the Equal Protection Clause as well? Or is it the fact that punch card counties are more commonly in low income counties, who tend to vote Republican (Al Gore)? on the full-page of these things ould be seen as discriminatory or â€Å"not equal” as well as the non-uniform standard for counting, but if the Supreme Court has decided that the distinguish standard is in violation then in thought the whole Election should be rendered â€Å"unconstitutional” and put to an end, correct? To continue, no it should not be put to an end. The Supreme C ourt should have arranged a stay on the Recount until a uniform standard was put in luff for all of the Florida Counties and they should have ordered that every state have a uniform standard for Recounts for forthcoming elections.The Supreme Court made a hardheaded but Unlawful decision in voting for the violation of the Equal Protection Clause which take to the stoppage of the 2000 Florida Recount. (Bo Li, Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 3). This goes without mentioning the fact that Bush’s state of Texas had a uniform voting standard which allowed anything to be counted in the scenario of a recount including a dimpled chad. This means that Governor Bush subscribe in a bill that let any vote with slight intent be counted in the process of a Recount, yet is arguing that intent of a voter is an unconstitutional argument.This is hypocritical and shows a lack of character, if Bush truly believes in the Constitution he should be letting all the legal votes be counted to see if he actually won the establishment of the United States. If Bush truly cared about the simple uniform standards for Recounting, he should have ordered for a stay until uniform standards were set in place. sooner he argued the entire Recount unconstitutional and the 5-4 majority (5 Republican Judges-4 republican Judges) decided that there was no reason to Recount possibly legal votes when it had a chance of harming Bush’s chance to come Prime Minister.Legal analysts from all over the Country explained it as the Justices trying to make a pragmatic decision by putting an end to this controversy, turns out it backfired on them. (Geoffrey R. Stone, Equal Protection? ) The third point to be explained in this case is the ongoing controversy over voting deadlines and how the ever so bright escritoire of State in Florida Katherine Harris’ thoughts were constantly being controlled by Bush advisors. Katherine Harris (and Friends) made it very clear that they would ot be accepti ng votes after a certain deadline, which leave no time for the original recount. All these votes had to be stamped and signed to be considered legal votes. This left the Democratic Party frantically trying to recount votes and birth them stamped and in on time. When she ruled that if votes were not stamped and signed they could not be veritable, the Democratic Party argued that hemorrhoid of Military votes could not be counted because they were very rarely stamped and signed. In the US there is no voting law that states Military Votes can be accepted with no signature or stamp.This obviously led to an uproar from Republicans (Who most military votes get casted for) because it was just unethical for the Democrats to take away illegal votes for the Republicans. What the Republicans take apart to realize is that taking away Florida citizens legal votes because you are scared of losing is also unethical. The Democrats later changed their minds and told the Secretary to view the Mi litary votes and give them special consideration. (Joseph I. Lieberman, Military Ballots merit a Review)There are a few other factors I would like to add to perspective originally closing my argument, in Florida the Republican swayed Secretary of State Katherine Harris put 20 Thousand people on the Voter Purge list. A Large congregation of these people had never done anything wrong, in detail an African-American Pastor could not vote because his represent was similar to that of a hardened criminal in Florida (HBO Documentary, Recount). The most interesting fact of all was that the 3 Judges who voted for Bush in both instances (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) were all considered Republican judges.In the last 30 years at the Supreme Court the 19 Cases involving the Equal Protection Clause concerning laws against race, elderly, and other minorities they voted a perfect 19 for 19 to uphold the Equal Protection Clause. Yet, the one case involving Politics and the party they are associate d with they for around strange reason voted against it with very little reasoning. (Geoffrey R. Stone, Equal Protection? ) If that’s not Politics in Black Robes, what is. In Conclusion, Legal votes in Florida were not counted when they should have een. The various ideas such as the seemly vote in Article 2, Section 1, the contradiction and unlawful voting on the Equal Protection Clause and the confusing deadlines regarding votes were all examples of how things can be exacerbated by impartial Judges and Secretary of States. The votes in Florida should have been recounted after a uniform standard was put in place similar to the one in Texas and the real results of the 2000 Election should have been deciphered.All else aside, the whole United States should have a uniform voting, counting and recounting standard to eliminate all this confusion in the future. Bibliography http://www. leg. state. fl. us/statutes/index. cfm? mode=constitution&submenu=3 http://www. nytimes. co m/2000/11/20/us/counting-vote-absentee-ballots-military-ballots-merit-review-lieberman-says. html? pagewanted=all&src=pm http://fathom. lib. uchicago. edu/1/777777122240/ http://www. oycf. org/Perspectives2/9_123100/bush_v1. htm HBO Documentary, Recount\r\n'