布什诉戈尔案件事实.docx

布什诉戈尔案件事实 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 Governor 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 manual 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 declined 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, 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 of 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 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 Appeal, 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 certified 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 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 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 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 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 counties 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). 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 to 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 certified results, subject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount. 2000年11月8日，即总统大选日的第二天，根据佛罗里达选区的报告，上诉人布什州长获得2909135张选票，被上诉人戈尔副总统获得2907351张选票，比布什州长只少1784张选票。因为布什州长以不到“全部选票的5%”的微弱多数获胜，所以，根据佛罗里达选举法典102.141(4)的规定，自动进行机器重新计票，计票结果显示布什州长仍然赢得选举，但是以更少的微弱多数获胜。接着，戈尔副总统根据佛州制定法 102.166(2000)中的有关佛州选举抗议条款的规定，在沃卢西亚县、棕桐滩县、布劳沃德县和迈阿密戴德县提出人工重新计票。这样就出现了一个争议，即当地各县检查委员会将选举结果提交给州务卿的截止日期是什么时候。州务卿拒绝将制定法苦号102.111,102.112规定的11月14日延后。然而，佛州最高法院将11月26日作为截止日期。我们同意作出命令，搁置佛州最高法院的判决，因为这一判决缺乏非常明确的依据。在12月11日，佛州最高法院根据请求作出判决恢复11月26日这一日期。 11月26日，佛州选举检查委员会确认了选举结果，并宣布布什州长赢得佛州25张选举人票。11月27日，戈尔副总统根据佛州争夺条款、佛州制定法102.168(2000)，在利昂县巡回法院提起诉讼，要求对这一确认的结果进行争夺。制定法 102.168(3)(c)规定的“接受大量非法选票或拒绝大量合法选票，并足以改变选举结果或令人怀疑选举结果”都可以成为提出争夺的理由。巡回法院拒绝了这一请求，认为戈尔副总统没有提出足够的证据。他上诉到第1区上诉法院，该法院将案件移送至佛州最高法院。 佛州最高法院受理了该案，并对原判决戈尔诉哈里斯(Gore v. Harris)进行了部分肯定和部分否定。佛州最高法院认为，巡回法院拒绝戈尔副总统对纳索县确认的选举结果的挑战，拒绝戈尔副总统对棕榈县检查委员会作出的3300张选票按照制定法术语不是“合法选票”的决定的挑战，这两项拒绝都是正确的。佛州最高法院认为，戈尔副总统已经按照号102.168(3)(c)规定，提供了充分证据来挑战迈阿密戴德县，戈尔认为该县没有人工清点9000张选票，而机器并没有从这些选票上识别出选民投的是哪位总统候选人(“问题选票”)。佛州最高法院考虑到选举结果如此接近，并且“根据这一结果，9000张没被计算的选票中所存在的合法选票足以令人怀疑这次选举结果，这一点是毫无疑问的”。按照佛州最高法院的判决，一张“合法选票”是“一张清楚表明投票人意志的选票”。因此，佛州最高法院下令在迈阿密戴德县人工重新计算这9000张选票。考虑到佛州制定法号102.168(8)(2000)的争夺条款授予巡回法院法官广泛的自由裁量权来“根据情况提供适当救济”，佛州最高法院进一步认为，巡回法院可以命令“选举监督官和检查委员会，以及必要的官员，在没有对问题选票进行人工重新计票或人工列表的所有各县立即进行重新计票或列表，该列表只在那些选票所在的个别县进行”。佛州最高法院还决定，戈尔副总统在棕搁滩县和迈阿密戴德县早些时候的人工重新计票中已经分别净得215张和168张合法选票。推翻了巡回法院的结论，此结论即，棕桐滩县无权将11月26日之后提交的215张得票包括在内，佛州最高法院解释说，截止日期不是为了将在截止日期之后仍在进行的人工重新统计的并被认定的选票排除出去。至于迈阿密戴德县，佛州最高法院认为，尽管被确认的168张选票是部分重新统计的结果，但它们是“可能会改变大选结果的合法选票”。因此，佛州最高法院命令巡回法院依据迈阿密戴德县的部分重新统计所得的实际选票数，将那些数字包括在被确认的结果中。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 amendment 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 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 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 the 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 unified standards manual recount (standardless manual recounts) violation of the 14th amendments equal protection of the laws and due process clauses.原告诉讼理由：只在部分县进行人工重新计票，必然造成州内选票统计中事实上的不平等，违背了联邦宪法第14条修正案中平等法律保护条款；人工计票可能比机器计票更容易出错，其结果更不可靠；局部的人工重新计票会引发全州性的重新计票，甚至导致全国性的重新计票，从而否定已有的大选结果。根据美国宪法和1887年选举人票计算条例，州议会有权决定各州总统选举人产生的方式，在选票出现纠纷时，应按大选前制定的法律解决。而现在，佛罗里达州最高法院的决定却改变了原定的计票程序和时间表，不仅违反了1887年的选举人票计算条例，而且也违反了宪法第14条修正案中的正当程序的原则（即未经正当法律程序，各州不能剥夺公民享有的联邦权利）佛罗里达最高法院下令对有争议选票进行人工计票、并由巡回法院来制定计票标准的决定，违反了宪法第2条总统选举人产生条款和1887年选举人票计算条例的“安全港”条款，缺少统一标准人工重新计票（ standardless manual recounts ）违反了宪法第14条修正案的平等法律保护和正当程序条款。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