布什訴戈?duì)柊讣聦?shí)

1、 布什訴戈?duì)柊讣聦?shí) On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent, Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Govern

2、or Bushs margin of victory was less than one-half of a percent . . . of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount was conducted under 102.141(4) of the election code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought manua

3、l recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Floridas election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. 102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary de

4、clined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. 102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Courts decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I,

5、 ante, at _-_ (slip. op., at 6-7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. _ So. 2d _, _ (slip op. at 30-31). On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner o

6、f Floridas 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Floridas contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. 102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to 102.168(3)(c), which provides that receipt of a number of

7、illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the electionshall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appe

8、al, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, _ So. 2d. _ (2000). The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gores challenge to the results cer

9、tified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Boards determination that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, legal votes. The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under 102.168(3)(c) with respect

10、 to his challenge to Miami-Dade Countys failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (undervotes). _ So. 2d., at _ (slip. op., at 22-23). Noting the closeness of the election, the Court explained that on this record, there can be

11、 no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt. Id., at _ (slip. op., at 35). A legal vote, as determined by the Supreme Court, is one in which there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter. Id., at _ (slip

12、op., at 25). The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Observing that the contest provisions vest broad discretion in the circuit judge to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances, Fla. Stat. 102.168(8) (2000), the Supreme Court further held

13、 that the Circuit Court could order the Supervisor of Elections and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes . . . to do so forthwith, said tabulation to take place in the individual cou

14、nties where the ballots are located. _ So. 2d, at _ (slip. op., at 38). The Supreme Court also determined that both Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a net gain of 215 and 168 legal votes for Vice President Gore. Id., at _ (slip. op., at 33-34)

15、. Rejecting the Circuit Courts conclusion that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the 215 net votes submitted past the November 26 deadline, the Supreme Court explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts. As t

16、o Miami-Dade County, the Court concluded that although the 168 votes identified were the result of a partial recount, they were legal votes that could change the outcome of the election. Id., at (slip op., at 34). The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to include those totals in the

17、certified results, subject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount. 2000年11月8日，即總統(tǒng)大選日的第二天，根據(jù)佛羅里達(dá)選區(qū)的報(bào)告，上訴人布什州長(zhǎng)獲得2909135張選票，被上訴人戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)獲得2907351張選票，比布什州長(zhǎng)只少1784張選票。因?yàn)椴际仓蓍L(zhǎng)以不到“全部選票的5%”的微弱多數(shù)獲勝，所以，根據(jù)佛羅里達(dá)選舉法典102.141(4)的規(guī)定，自動(dòng)進(jìn)行機(jī)器重新計(jì)票，計(jì)票結(jié)果顯示布什州長(zhǎng)仍然贏得選舉，但是以更少的微弱多數(shù)獲勝。接著，戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)根據(jù)佛州

18、制定法 102.166(2000)中的有關(guān)佛州選舉抗議條款的規(guī)定，在沃盧西亞縣、棕桐灘縣、布勞沃德縣和邁阿密戴德縣提出人工重新計(jì)票。這樣就出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)爭(zhēng)議，即當(dāng)?shù)馗骺h檢查委員會(huì)將選舉結(jié)果提交給州務(wù)卿的截止日期是什么時(shí)候。州務(wù)卿拒絕將制定法苦號(hào)102.111,102.112規(guī)定的11月14日延后。然而，佛州最高法院將11月26日作為截止日期。我們同意作出命令，擱置佛州最高法院的判決，因?yàn)檫@一判決缺乏非常明確的依據(jù)。在12月11日，佛州最高法院根據(jù)請(qǐng)求作出判決恢復(fù)11月26日這一日期。 11月26日，佛州選舉檢查委員會(huì)確認(rèn)了選舉結(jié)果，并宣布布什州長(zhǎng)贏得佛州25張選舉人票。11月27日，戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)根據(jù)

19、佛州爭(zhēng)奪條款、佛州制定法102.168(2000)，在利昂縣巡回法院提起訴訟，要求對(duì)這一確認(rèn)的結(jié)果進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)奪。制定法 102.168(3)(c)規(guī)定的“接受大量非法選票或拒絕大量合法選票，并足以改變選舉結(jié)果或令人懷疑選舉結(jié)果”都可以成為提出爭(zhēng)奪的理由。巡回法院拒絕了這一請(qǐng)求，認(rèn)為戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)沒(méi)有提出足夠的證據(jù)。他上訴到第1區(qū)上訴法院，該法院將案件移送至佛州最高法院。 佛州最高法院受理了該案，并對(duì)原判決戈?duì)栐V哈里斯(Gore v. Harris)進(jìn)行了部分肯定和部分否定。佛州最高法院認(rèn)為，巡回法院拒絕戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)對(duì)納索縣確認(rèn)的選舉結(jié)果的挑戰(zhàn)，拒絕戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)對(duì)棕櫚縣檢查委員會(huì)作出的3300張選票按照制定

20、法術(shù)語(yǔ)不是“合法選票”的決定的挑戰(zhàn)，這兩項(xiàng)拒絕都是正確的。佛州最高法院認(rèn)為，戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)已經(jīng)按照號(hào)102.168(3)(c)規(guī)定，提供了充分證據(jù)來(lái)挑戰(zhàn)邁阿密戴德縣，戈?duì)栒J(rèn)為該縣沒(méi)有人工清點(diǎn)9000張選票，而機(jī)器并沒(méi)有從這些選票上識(shí)別出選民投的是哪位總統(tǒng)候選人(“問(wèn)題選票”)。佛州最高法院考慮到選舉結(jié)果如此接近，并且“根據(jù)這一結(jié)果，9000張沒(méi)被計(jì)算的選票中所存在的合法選票足以令人懷疑這次選舉結(jié)果，這一點(diǎn)是毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)的”。按照佛州最高法院的判決，一張“合法選票”是“一張清楚表明投票人意志的選票”。因此，佛州最高法院下令在邁阿密戴德縣人工重新計(jì)算這9000張選票?？紤]到佛州制定法號(hào)102.168(8)

21、(2000)的爭(zhēng)奪條款授予巡回法院法官?gòu)V泛的自由裁量權(quán)來(lái)“根據(jù)情況提供適當(dāng)救濟(jì)”，佛州最高法院進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為，巡回法院可以命令“選舉監(jiān)督官和檢查委員會(huì)，以及必要的官員，在沒(méi)有對(duì)問(wèn)題選票進(jìn)行人工重新計(jì)票或人工列表的所有各縣立即進(jìn)行重新計(jì)票或列表，該列表只在那些選票所在的個(gè)別縣進(jìn)行”。佛州最高法院還決定，戈?duì)柛笨偨y(tǒng)在棕?cái)R灘縣和邁阿密戴德縣早些時(shí)候的人工重新計(jì)票中已經(jīng)分別凈得215張和168張合法選票。推翻了巡回法院的結(jié)論，此結(jié)論即，棕桐灘縣無(wú)權(quán)將11月26日之后提交的215張得票包括在內(nèi)，佛州最高法院解釋說(shuō)，截止日期不是為了將在截止日期之后仍在進(jìn)行的人工重新統(tǒng)計(jì)的并被認(rèn)定的選票排除出去。至于邁阿密戴德

22、縣，佛州最高法院認(rèn)為，盡管被確認(rèn)的168張選票是部分重新統(tǒng)計(jì)的結(jié)果，但它們是“可能會(huì)改變大選結(jié)果的合法選票”。因此，佛州最高法院命令巡回法院依據(jù)邁阿密戴德縣的部分重新統(tǒng)計(jì)所得的實(shí)際選票數(shù)，將那些數(shù)字包括在被確認(rèn)的結(jié)果中。Plaintiffs cause of action： manual recounts in some counties, will inevitably lead to de facto inequalities in the votes in the State, violated the equal protection clause in the 14th amendm

23、ent to the Federal Constitution;the manual recount may be more prone than the machine count, the result unreliable;part of the manual recount will trigger a statewide recount, and even led to a nationwide recount, which denied the election results.Under the United States Constitution of 1887 and the

24、 electoral vote calculations Ordinance, the State legislature the right to decide the way of the States presidential electors ballot paper, when there is a dispute, should be settled according to laws enacted before the election.Now the decision of the Florida Supreme Court had changed the original

25、counting process and timetable, not only violated the 1887 electoral vote calculations of the Ordinance, but also a violation of the principle of due process in the 14th amendment of the Constitution (that is, without due process of law, States cannot deprive citizens of Federal rights)Ordered by th

26、e Florida Supreme Court on the disputed ballot paper manual recount, and developed by the Circuit Court of vote-counting standards decision violated the Constitution, the 2nd presidential election people terms and in 1887 the enactment of electoral vote calculations safe harbour provisions。Lack of u

27、nified standards manual recount (standardless manual recounts) violation of the 14th amendments equal protection of the laws and due process clauses.原告訴訟理由：只在部分縣進(jìn)行人工重新計(jì)票，必然造成州內(nèi)選票統(tǒng)計(jì)中事實(shí)上的不平等，違背了聯(lián)邦憲法第14條修正案中平等法律保護(hù)條款；人工計(jì)票可能比機(jī)器計(jì)票更容易出錯(cuò)，其結(jié)果更不可靠；局部的人工重新計(jì)票會(huì)引發(fā)全州性的重新計(jì)票，甚至導(dǎo)致全國(guó)性的重新計(jì)票，從而否定已有的大選結(jié)果。根據(jù)美國(guó)憲法和1887年選舉人票

28、計(jì)算條例，州議會(huì)有權(quán)決定各州總統(tǒng)選舉人產(chǎn)生的方式，在選票出現(xiàn)糾紛時(shí)，應(yīng)按大選前制定的法律解決。而現(xiàn)在，佛羅里達(dá)州最高法院的決定卻改變了原定的計(jì)票程序和時(shí)間表，不僅違反了1887年的選舉人票計(jì)算條例，而且也違反了憲法第14條修正案中的正當(dāng)程序的原則（即未經(jīng)正當(dāng)法律程序，各州不能剝奪公民享有的聯(lián)邦權(quán)利）佛羅里達(dá)最高法院下令對(duì)有爭(zhēng)議選票進(jìn)行人工計(jì)票、并由巡回法院來(lái)制定計(jì)票標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的決定，違反了憲法第2條總統(tǒng)選舉人產(chǎn)生條款和1887年選舉人票計(jì)算條例的“安全港”條款，缺少統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)人工重新計(jì)票（ standardless manual recounts ）違反了憲法第14條修正案的平等法律保護(hù)和正當(dāng)程序條款

29、。Reason for defence ：Manual recount to ensure the accuracy of votes, respect for and protection of the civil and political rights, the Secretary of State has no right to refuse to accept results of manual recount.Republicans responded by saying the Secretary of State law, and devotion to duty.The States highest court has no jurisdiction.Manual recount is a normal countin