Skip Navigation

by daniel lance herrick

Author Contact info:
daniel lance herrick
Secretary of the National Reform Association
+1 440 632 9417
dlh@dlh.com
President: The National Reform Association
REV. JEFFREY A. ZIEGLER

NRA P.O. Box 46 Unionville, OH. 44088 Phone: +1 440 428 5062
Email: ceejz@ncweb.com

Ruth Bader Ginzburg and Lawrence Tribe are right

The Florida Supreme Court issued a decision requested by the Gore campaign, delaying certification of the vote by the Florida Secretary of State.

The Bush campaign went to the United States Supreme Court with the claim that the Florida Supreme Court wrote new law, replacing the clear statutory deadline for certification with a different deadline of their own invention.

The US Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments limited to consideration of how the Florida Supreme Court decision interacts with an 1887 federal law that requires disputes about selection of electors in presidential elections to be resolved under laws enacted before election day.

The Gore campaign, represented by Lawrence Tribe, argued that this is a state matter (correct) and that the Florida Supreme Court has the last word (not so clear). Justice Ginzburg said, as she questioned the Bush representatives, that the US Supreme Court owes the highest possible respect to the Florida Supreme Court in this matter.

It is a Florida separation of powers dispute

If the Bush claim is correct, that the Florida Supreme Court wrote new law, then this is a dispute among the branches of the government of the State of Florida about the separation of powers in Florida.

In Florida, as in many other states, "all legislative powers are vested in a legislature."

When the Florida Supreme Court starts legislating, it is the job of the Florida State Legislature to defend its turf and reign in the Florida Supreme Court. For the US Supreme Court to step into a particular case without an invitation from any branch of the Florida State Government would require a very careful argument explaining how it had jurisdiction.

So, calling a special session is the right thing to do

This particular issue is very time sensitive and the Florida State Legislature has to be called into session before it can speak. There is no session scheduled before this issue will become moot.

There must be a special session called so the legisture can speak.

Just naming a slate of electors is the wrong thing to do

If the Florida State Legislature meets and just names its slate of electors, as the press is reporting it plans to do, this will be a new law passed after the election. That runs afoul of the 1887 law currently being considered by the US Supreme Court. Such an act would, properly, be set aside by the US Supreme Court.

What is the right thing to do?

Again, this is a separation of powers dispute between two branches of the government of the State of Florida. It must be addressed in those terms to avoid falling afoul of the 1887 federal law. The Florida State Legislature should enact a binding resolution (that's not the correct parliamentary language under their rules) declaring:

• The interpretation of the Florida election statutes advanced by the Florida Attorney General is the correct interpretation.
• The interpretation of the Florida election statutes advanced by the Florida Supreme Court is not the correct interpretation.
• The Attorney General of the State of Florida is instructed to certify the election numbers and the slate of electors she intended to certify on 18 November 2000.

This keeps the dispute within the State of Florida. It affirms the law as it stood before election day. It invokes proper constitutional prerogatives of the various branches of the government of the State of Florida.

And the US Constitution explicitly grants to the Florida State Legislature authority to determine how to choose Florida electors. Following this form defends that authority against an attempted encroachment by the Florida Supreme Court.

- 30 -

back to top