Name
Professor
Class
Due date

Background
The year 2000 election was the most closely contested of all presidential elections in the United States. The election involved strong candidates George Bush and Al Gore of Republican and Democratic parties respectively. The closeness of the race gave rise to an election petition challenging the election of George Bush as president. At the epicenter of the crisis was the state of Florida where the democrats complained of election malpractices that was aimed at favoring the Republican candidate.
The conflict heightened and the Florida Supreme Court took the matter as required by the legislative laws of the state. The court argued that the democrats had enough reasons to warrant a recount of votes. The reasons for the recount, as stated by the democrats were that the Republicans worked with the state governor to deny Democratic Party followers a chance to vote. According to the court, the agents at certain precincts did not allow some ethnic minorities to vote or required too many documents such as passports against the elections laws of the state of Florida. In addition, the case was argued that some of the officials left the polling stations early leaving out some voters.
Upon hearing the complaints from all parties, the Florida Supreme court ordered afresh recount of votes all over the state of Florida by a 4-3 vote. Consequently, multiple court proceedings arose on the same issue of elections. He US supreme court took over the matter and decided on a 5-4 vote to halt the vote recount in the state of Florida. However, the Supreme Court decision was not popular since the justices were divided and were thus unable to reach a unanimous decision. Five judges concurred with halting the recount while four were dissenting. This meant that George Bush was confirmed as the winner of Presidency in the state of Florida.
Criticisms were levied on this decision with many scholars doubting the authenticity and accuracy of the judgment. Questions on the logical essence of election laws were raised. The equal protection clause was referenced in a manner that the law did not allow the votes to be subjected to different methods of counting. This was in connection with the request of Al Gore for a manual recount of votes in five counties that seemed to be skewed to democrats. On this, the judges agreed on a 7- 2 vote.
Dissenting arguments
Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justices Breyer and Justice Ginsburg dissented on the Supreme Court ruling. They argued that the state of Florida could solve election issues effectively using her legislative laws.
Justice Stevens argues that the United States constitution guarantees every state a right to determine the way through which they select their presidential electors. He argued that on matters concerning state laws, it was of best interest for the Supreme Court of the state to provide interpretation. The judge thus dismissed the involvement of federal judicial service on matters of state elections. Justice Stevens quotes article II which states that ‘each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature may direct, a number of electors’. This clause implies that the state of Florida had the right to decide the electors who would vote in the president. Thus, federal intervention was not a viable alternative.
It is well stated in the constitution that states shall decide the number of electors and election procures through their legislatures. As such, justice Stevens arguments was valid such that the election petition could have been handled by the Florida supreme court with the abstinence of the US supreme court. Having an appellate jurisdiction, Florida Supreme Court was inconsistent with article II where it derives its authority.
In his judgment, Stevens asserts that even the petitioners were not right in asserting that votes could be recounted manually in some counties. This was not consistent with the law of equal protections where votes are supposed to be weighed equally. He continued to explain the ‘intent of a voter’ on the side where a vote will be cast if given an opportunity. As such, the democrats were not justified in claiming that democrat followers were not allowed to vote. However, Stevens acclaims that if the intent of a voter is clearly seen, then the vote should be accepted as legal.
This argument is valid since disenfranchisement of votes that are uncounted and reveal the intent of the voters is a violation of electoral rights. However, the code does not hinder states from counting all legal votes until a clear winner is determined. Thus, all Florida voters ought to have all their votes counted.
Justice Souter argued that if the state of Florida was allowed to determine the election petition through its own means, all the political processes would have worked out between the state and congress as stated in 3 U.S.C. 15. He implied that there was no need to link the US Supreme Court to such an issue. In his judgment, he claimed that the States Supreme court had not defined the term ‘legal votes’. However, the term would work with all votes where the voter’s intent was clear. This is because it is not a constitutional violation to do so. Florida election statutes do not define the terms legal votes and rejection of votes. This posed serious concerns as to what extent the votes would be checked for legality.
According to Souter, there were absolutely no questions pertaining interpretation of article II of the state stature. Therefore, the judge found that the trial judge had the right to proceed as authorized and issue directions in exercise of discretionary powers as per Florida laws. In this regard, the judge reserved the right to ensure that all claims are investigated and determined to provide justice to aggrieved party.
Justice Souter argument is applicable where justice is paramount to both parties. Thus, a vote recount for the whole state could have solved the mystery. Respect and uplifting of state laws, respect of interpretations of states in regard to their laws is important for a stable democracy. In a nutshell, Florida courts ought to have been given a chance to express their opinions and consequently solve the puzzle.
Justice Ginsburg argues that there is no difference in competence between a federal judge and state judge. She asserts that the state laws should bind he Supreme Court decisions and thereby prevent a potential crisis between federal p and state laws. Consulting states on matters that relate to their laws is relevant in creating a judicial federalism. This may help in addressing conflicting national and state laws.
Ginsburg views are justified from all perspectives. It was impossible for the federal court to act in a state that has its own laws in total disregard of the state’s justice system. The US Supreme Court had overstepped its mandate pertaining nullification of Florida Supreme Court decision.
Justice Breyer admitted that the issues of federal and state laws were important for the country. Breyer asserts that Equal protection hindrances were acting and reacting upon each other during the cases. This means that there was a contradiction in interpretations. Counting of votes in some counties would have serous implication since the counting style would be uninform. As such, the best practice was to allow the state’s law applies.
Justice Breyer criticized ‘time frame’ argument and states that there was no record to show that the process of uniform recounting would not have been completed within the set time. By doing this, the court victimized all the voters whose legal votes went uncounted. This implies that a possible recount could have solved the mysteries that surrounded elections in Florida.

Works cited
"Online NewsHour: Legal Analysis -- December 13, 2000." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Florida Stat. 102.168 (8) (2000). Print
George Bush et al. vs Albert Gore et al. 531 U.S. (2000). Supreme Court of the United States. 2000. Public Broadcasting service. Web. 2 Dec .2013
U.S. Constitution. Art.II

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. US Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 3. Print.
[ 2 ]. Fla. Stat. 102.168 (8) (2000). Print