Justices Question Recount Appeal

Now, President-elect Bush, the certified winner of the Florida presidential election, and Democrat Al Gore must wait, along with the rest of the country, for the crucial verdict that could finally settle the race for the presidency.

The high court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments on why and whether the manual recount of "undercounted" ballots should resume in Florida. The arguments took place one day before the deadline for selecting members of the Electoral College.

Specifically, the nine Supreme Court justices examined Friday's Florida Supreme Court ruling that ordered the immediate hand counting of tens of thousands of Florida ballots that did not originally register a vote for president.

In a 5-4 decision Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an immediate stop to that recount until the merits of the case could be decided.

The justices grilled Bush attorney Ted Olson on whether a constitutional issue applies that should involve the U.S. Supreme Court.

Several justices took issue with the lack of a single standard for determining voter "intent" on ballots that did not register a vote for president when counted by machine.

Bush's attorneys, in documents filed Sunday, argued that the Florida Supreme Court created new rules after the Nov. 7 election. Gore's attorneys argued that the Florida court simply ruled in favor of counting every vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia said an order from the Florida Supreme Court to recount votes "certainly contravenes our vacating of their prior order."

Gore's lead attorney, David Boies, disagreed, saying, "I think not, your honor." Scalia said the certification was directed to be changed, contrary to an earlier decision by the federal court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked whether Boies thought that during the "contest phase" there must be a "uniform standard for counting the ballots." Boies said yes and claimed there was one, but questioned whether the standard is too general.

Kennedy asked if the standard could vary from county to county, or even from table to table in one county. Boies said some states have allowed "catchall" standards that say look at the "intent of the voter."

Speaking for a number of his fellow justices, Justice David Souter said what was bothering "a lot of us here is that we seem to have a situation here where we have a sub-category of ballots" in which there is no standard.

Souter said the general rule was that an objective standard varies from county to county and asked why there should not be one standard for each county, but then asked rhetorically whether that would constitute "a denial of equal protection to allow that variation?"

At one point, Souter said it was clear that "we can't send this thing back for more fact-finding."

Copyright

Outraged by Gore's election theft? The Florida Supreme Court? Click here to voice your opinion with a NewsMax.com PriorityGram. It's more powerful than an e-mail or phone call.