Albert GORE, Jr., and Joseph I. Lieberman v. Katherine HARRIS, et al.

Supreme Court of Florida
772 So.2d 1243 (2000)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a statutory election contest, if there is a sufficient number of uncounted ballots that could change or place in doubt the outcome of the election, a court must order a manual recount of those ballots. A 'legal vote' is one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter,' and the failure of a machine to read such a ballot constitutes a 'rejection' of that vote.

Facts:

The U.S. presidential election was held on November 7, 2000, and the results in Florida were extremely close between Albert Gore, Jr. and George W. Bush.
After an initial machine count and a mandatory machine recount, Bush's lead was a few hundred votes out of nearly six million cast.
The Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results on November 26, 2000, declaring Bush the winner of Florida's electoral votes by a margin of 537 votes.
In Miami-Dade County, the canvassing board began a manual recount of all ballots but suspended its work before completion, leaving approximately 9,000 'undervotes'—ballots where machines detected no vote for president—unexamined.
During its partial recount of about 20% of its precincts, the Miami-Dade board had identified 168 net new votes for Gore.
The Palm Beach County Canvassing Board completed a full manual recount, which it determined resulted in a net gain of 215 votes for Gore, but these results were not included in the final certified total because they were submitted after a state-imposed deadline.
Palm Beach County also reviewed and ultimately did not count approximately 3,300 additional ballots, determining that voter intent on them was not discernible.

Procedural Posture:

On November 26, 2000, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's presidential election.
Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph I. Lieberman filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court, a state trial court, to contest the certification under Florida's election contest statute.
The trial court conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing.
On December 4, 2000, the trial court entered a final judgment denying all requested relief, finding the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof.
Gore and Lieberman, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
The First District Court of Appeal immediately certified the appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, as a matter of great public importance requiring immediate resolution.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a statewide election contest, does the rejection of a number of ballots sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election require a court to order a manual recount of legally contested ballots?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. The rejection of a number of ballots sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election requires a court to order a manual recount. The trial court made three errors of law. First, it incorrectly applied a deferential 'abuse of discretion' standard to the canvassing boards' decisions; an election contest is a de novo proceeding where the court must determine the validity of the votes. Second, the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof, requiring a 'reasonable probability' that the result would change, when the statute only requires that the rejected legal votes be 'sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.' Given the 537-vote margin and 9,000 uncounted ballots in Miami-Dade alone, this 'place in doubt' standard was met. Third, the court failed to recognize that a 'legal vote,' defined by statute as one with a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter,' must be counted. The court ordered an immediate manual recount of the Miami-Dade undervotes and directed the trial court to order a statewide recount of all undervotes not yet manually reviewed, reasoning that such relief was necessary to treat all similarly situated voters equally in a statewide election.

Dissenting - Wells, C.J.

No. A court-ordered recount is not required and is improper under these circumstances. The majority's decision has no foundation in Florida law as it existed on Election Day and propels the state and country into an unnecessary constitutional crisis. By ordering a manual recount without providing any standards for determining voter intent, the majority creates an 'overflowing basket of practical problems' and asks the trial court to perform a task that cannot be completed fairly and accurately before the federal 'safe harbor' deadline of December 12. This judicial intervention also violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants plenary power to the state legislature, not the courts, to determine the manner of appointing electors. The trial court's decision should be affirmed because finality must take precedence over continued judicial process in this unprecedented situation.

Dissenting - Harding, J.

No. Although the trial judge applied the wrong legal standards, the appellants ultimately failed to carry their burden of proof, and no adequate remedy exists. I agree with the majority that the trial court erred by using an 'abuse of discretion' standard and a 'reasonable probability' burden of proof. However, the appellants failed to demonstrate that the statewide election result was in doubt; they only provided evidence for a few counties. Permitting a selective recount in counties chosen by the appellants would be an 'unfair distortion of the statewide vote.' While the only proper remedy would be a full statewide recount of all 'no-vote' ballots, it is impossible to conduct such a recount accurately and fairly by the December 12 deadline. The court should not order a 'useless act,' and the majority's remedy is an unworkable solution to a problem for which time has run out.

Analysis:

This decision established the primacy of 'voter intent' over rigid adherence to election machinery and deadlines in Florida law. By ordering a statewide manual recount, the court asserted broad judicial authority to fashion remedies in election contests to ensure every legal vote is counted. The ruling significantly expanded the scope of post-election judicial review, shifting the focus from procedural compliance by election officials to a substantive examination of individual ballots. However, by creating a new, judicially supervised counting process with a vague 'clear intent' standard days before federal deadlines, the decision raised critical separation of powers issues and invited federal review, ultimately leading to the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention in Bush v. Gore.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Albert GORE, Jr., and Joseph I. Lieberman v. Katherine HARRIS, et al. (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"