Emma Finkelstein

March 1, 2010

AP Government E Block

George W. Bush, Petitioners v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Et Al.

     Since the nation's founding, federalism has been one of the biggest and most touched upon subjects. The issues that are brought up in the name of federalism question the very values that out forefathers believed in the most. The case of Petitioners v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board is a case that encompasses a multitude issues; however, the most profound outcomes of the ruling were in the realm of federalism. The court which presided over this case, the Rehnquist Court, was expected to shift to the right as the new, and admittedly conservative, chief justice was promoted from his previous position as an Associate Justice. The majority of onlookers figured the court would be a force for conservative values that would possibly push back some of the leftist rulings that had been made in past years. The truth is that the court flip-flopped between right and left during this time. In the case of Petitioner v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board is quite contrary to the preconceived notion, which of course is always interesting to study.

     In the election year of 2000, Senator Bush and Vice President Gore were facing off against one another for the presidency. As the votes were tallies using machines for increased speed, it became evident that the final weight to tip the balance one way or another rested in the counting of the Florida vote. To make things more interesting Senator Bush won the state's delegates by a difference of 1,784 votes, which was equal to or less than one half of a percent of the total votes cast in the state. Under Florida state law, this small of a margin of victory warranted a complete recount of the state's votes^[1]; the result was an even smaller number of votes in the favor of Senator Bush. Once again, in accordance with state law, Vice President Gore requested the manual recount of the votes in four counties in particular: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade^[2]. The Florida Secretary of State and the Republican Party both took great issue with this request. They argued this could not take place because of the deadlines of the election that were set up within state law. However, there were conflicting deadlines in the statutes, and it was on these grounds that Vice President Gore took suit to the Florida Supreme Court. In their ruling, the Florida Supreme Court chose which deadlines to uphold, without explanation of choice, which allowed a window of seven extra days for the votes of the previously mentioned counties to be recounted. The court also ruled that these counties could petition the Secretary of State for a time extension if needed in order to tally the votes, but this was only an option upon application and the delegation of these grace periods were contingent on her discretion.

     As the completion of this newly allotted time drew closer, each of the four counties in question sought more time and each of them were rejected. Under these circumstances, Vice President Gore and the Democratic Party were just about to bring suit once again to the Florida Supreme Court, putting the objectivity of the Republican Secretary of State into question. But before this could take place, Senator Bush and the Republican Party brought suit to the Federal Supreme Court bringing to question the validity of the ruling the Florida Supreme Court. Because the Constitution reads “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors^[3]”, Senator Bush claims that the decision of the Florida Supreme Court circumvented, or undermined, the power of the State Legislator to determine the way in which the Electors would be choosen. The Constitutional question that was brought before the Supreme Court was twofold: First, did Florida Supreme Court decisions violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution? And second, did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II of the US Constitution, which gives the power of making election statutes to the State Legislator, when the Florida Supreme Court changed the manner in which Florida's electoral votes were chosen.

     After deliberation, the court vacated the Florida Supreme Court's decision, remanded the case, and decided that before it could rule completely on the issue at hand, there were questions that the Florida Supreme Court needed to answer, such as why did the Florida Supreme Court decide to uphold certain deadline dates and not others^[4]? And, to what extent did the Florida Supreme Court adhere to the federal statute that presides over the election of the delegates to the Electoral College during a presidential election? To reach this decision, the Supreme Court cited the precedent of McPherson v. Blacker (1892), which also used Article 1 Section 1 Clause 2 stating that this words “operate as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power.^[5]” However, in this case the Supreme Court ruled that “the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself.^[6]” This, the first part of the Supreme Court ruling, is well within the bounds of precedent, but it is the second part, relating to federal statute, is fairly groundbreaking. In the history of the court, the majority of its ruling of issues of federalism have gone in favor of state's rights. This case was different. By asking the State of Florida to explain its election policies, which are a power given to them in the Constitution, in comparison to the federal laws surrounding the election of electors, the court effectively put federal law above state law.

      In this decision, I agree with the Supreme Court. Federal law should be the law of the land. But then again I am a big government proponent. If a law stands, and is even cited in a Supreme Court case, then it is Constitutional and does not infringe upon state's rights. This is the case with the federal statute relating to the election of electors to the Electoral College. This case laid the precedent for cases of federalism in the future, which is important, but I think the most interesting part of the case was how it was brought up and by whom. It was Senator Bush, who claimed to be a small central government guy, which we know now to be a false statement, made a federal case of a dispute within a state. Whereas, the democratic candidate, who are usually in favor of a big central government, wanted to allow the state of Florida to work the problem out for itself. Bush used federal power overpowering state law to win the elector college votes necessary to be President. This was probably the best indicator of tone of his Presidency even though we did not know it at the time. This case determined, in a way, the next President of the United States.