Florida's Secretary of State and the election commission certified George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's election and therefore of its 25 electoral votes. That gives Bush the necessary number of electoral votes to become the president-elect, pending the vote of the electoral college on 18 December, the counting of the votes on 4 January 2001 and the declaration of the winner. The tally is 271-267, giving Bush a one vote majority, one of the closest in American history. But it is not over because Al Gore is contesting the election in Florida on several fronts and George W. Bush has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the manual recount in Florida. In short, finality of the 2000 presidential election has not been reached. Let's think about this situation together:

First, despite all of the energy and passion poured into the manual recount and the controversy over whether dimpled or pregnant chads should be counted, there is almost no emphasis on the thousands of disenfranchised people on election night in Florida's panhandle. When every major network called the Florida election for Gore, the polls in Florida's panhandle were still open (it is in the CST zone, not EST). Did this fact keep people from voting? The John McLaughlin Associates conducted a research project on the number of Florida voters who did not vote in the panhandle because the election had already been called for Gore. Their estimate, based on a thorough poll of the region, indicates that 187,000 voters did not vote in the panhandle because the networks had called the election. In addition, of those 187,000 people who did not vote, the split between Bush and Gore would have been a 60-40% split, thereby giving Bush a comfortable margin in the election. In short, what the McLaughlin research shows is that the media's calling of the election for Gore before the panhandle's polls closed, cost Bush thousands of votes and a comfortable margin that would have made his victory in Florida decisive. The media therefore disenfranchised thousands of citizens and helped create the mess we are currently in. The question is - how do you now call them to accountability? There is no provision in law for this and there is no way you can prove this satisfactorily in a court of law. It is a matter of fairness, but one about which we can do nothing.

Second, this Friday, 1 December, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Bush petition concerning the manual recount of ballots in three counties of Florida Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. The Gore team, led by lead counsel David Boies, argued that the Court would not accept the case; but it did. In addition, the Boies team for Gore stated that the Florida Supreme Court acted properly in ordering the counting of "dimpled chads" because of an Illinois Supreme Court decision. But Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune demonstrated in a critical article that the Illinois case actually stands for the exact opposite proposition and affirms the exclusion of dimpled chads. In this highly technical legal atmosphere, why then did the Supreme Court accept this case? I believe the Court accepted this case because the election is obviously a cliff-hanger and is now drowning in a sea of litigation that could be self-destructive for the republic. In addition, the case hits at the heart of federalism and the nature of our republic. Finally, the Florida Supreme Court exalted abstract rights claims and ignored constitutional and statutory provisions of Florida law. As Douglas W. Kmiec, one of the nations's leading constitutional scholars, has argued, "Drawing upon no source other than its own assertion, the court crafted its own timetable for certification." The problem for Gore is that Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the US Constitution states that the "manner" of appointing presidential electors belongs to the state legislature, not the state courts. In addition, the Florida Supreme Court totally revised the enacted certification standard and deadlines after the election was held!!! State legislative authority over elections is not a matter of inference, it is explicit!! Therefore, the weight of the constitutional issue rests with directing the Florida state officials to follow the law as it was written on election day, not all of the legal convolutions and gyrations that have emanated from the string of lawsuits and challenges since 7 November. I believe that the Supreme Court will so rule.

Third, but as Doug Kmiec has made clear, even if the Supreme Court overrules the judicial activism of the Florida Supreme Court, Gore could continue to contest the Florida election based on his tired claims of voter error and confusion, claims that do not meet the clear and demanding standard of fraud. He could nonetheless continue his challenge of the Florida certification and take it once again to the Florida Supreme Court. Finally, do not forget, that if the US Supreme Court does throw out the Florida Supreme Court's decision, Bush's majority is only by two and electors who vote on 18 December could change their mind. In other words, if two of Bush's electors change their votes and vote for Gore it is a tie and goes to the House of Representatives. If three change their votes, then Gore is the president. In one sense, therefore, we may not know who is president until the ballots are opened on 4 January 2001 by Al Gore, the president of the Senate!!! It could get more bizarre!!!!

See an interview with John McLaughlin on "The O'Reilly Report," Fox News (27 November 2000) and Douglas M. Kmiec, "Will It End With the Supreme Court?," The Wall Street Journal (27 November 2000)

Back to top

OSAMA bin LADEN, YEMEN AND THE USS COLE

Back to top