Count Me Out

I just watched Recount, the HBO dramatization of the 2000 election. It was painful to watch it all again, having lived through it at fairly close range. It did prompt me to attempt to read that actual Supreme Court ruling. A few interesting points:

"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 nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting."

Hanging chad and dimpled chad (as a line in the movie points out, the plural of chad is chad) became jokes but illustrate the fundamental principle behind the recount: the establishment of the "clear intent of the voter."

The court's problem with the recount was that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because the recount was not being conducted in a standard way across counties: "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy." The Supremes criticized the Florida SC because ".....a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards." That's why they had stopped the recount three days earlier.

The court then found that the remedy for this violation of the rights of the citizens of Florida to vote was to do nothing. The clock had run out. Thing is, the Court stopped the clock.

The FL court ruling had mandated a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline,which allows states to appoint electors during a period after the election. As the US SC heard the case on December 11, there was no way for the FL court to fashion a remedy.

SO the Supreme Court decides that the rights of the people of Florida were being violated BUT that there was no remedy because the certification deadline had passed and there was no time for the Florida Court to provide new standards for a fair recount because they had stopped the recount.

Do you have to be a constitutional lawyer to smell the shit wafting off of that ruling?

In the words of John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Many people say, Well, if Gore had won his own state he wouldn't have needed Florida. If the count had continued maybe Bush would have won for real. I think the quote credited to Michael Whouley in the movie sums it up:

"Ralph Nadar should have pulled his head out of his ass, and Elian Gonzales should have never left Miami and Gore should have campaigned with Clinton and Clinton should have been caught getting a $%^&*^$ from Sharon Stone instead of Monica Lewinsky because his approval ratings would have shot through the roof and Katherine Harris should have thought twice about purging 20,000 voters from the voter files and George Bush, Jr. should have never quit drinkin', but, he did."

I won't even deliniate the 'what ifs' if Gore was president instead of Bush. It's too sad to count.

An interesting footnote: According to an analysis of ballots conducted after 2000, and contrary to the headline, Gore clearly won for certain if the Buchanan ballot fiasco hadn't happened. Even Chad would agree to that.