| Election
2000 - Just Ice Those inclined to believe in the probity of high councils, such as those that disburse a nation’s health research funds, were driven from complacency in the fall of 2000 when one of the highest councils, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, handed the Presidency to the republican son of a previous republican President. The republicans had discarded their most competent candidate, Senator John McCain, who strongly advocated reform of campaign financing (see above), and selected George Bush, the Governor of Texas. The democrats selected the Vice-President, Albert Gore. In a time of "unprecedented prosperity" things looked good for Gore, whose 8 year understudy had amply prepared him to assume the highest office in the land. Yet, his style was somewhat "stiff," and his mentor, Clinton, had erred in his private life. By pressing for Clinton’s impeachment on this matter, the republicans had attempting to cripple the Presidency (and hence the important role it had to play in a dangerous world) in support of their own political interests. Bush played the "integrity" card for all it was worth, and the election became "too close to call." Everything came to depend on the vote in Florida, whose 25 electoral college votes would give victory. In the initial count, Bush had a slight lead. However, malfunctioning voting machines in certain democratic counties had rejected large numbers of votes ("undercounts"). The voters in those counties had thus been denied "the equal protection of the law" that the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment required. Gore appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida, which has final authority in state matters, requesting a recount in these counties, and called upon Bush to join him and press for a rapid hand recount of all rejected votes in Florida, so that "the will of the people" would become apparent, and the future President would be legitimized. Bush decline to do this and the matter went to the Supreme Court of the USA. Meanwhile, the State Supreme Court, under pressure from the Federal Supreme Court not to "make new law" gave the go-ahead for the recount, which under existing Florida Law required that the counters manually examine the voting cards to discern "the clear intent" of the voter. While this criterion might differ from counter to counter, an individual counter would use the same criterion whether judging an undercount for Bush or for Gore. So the counting was essentially fair, and could be made fairer by group evaluation of every undercounted ballot. The Florida Law did not elaborate, in advance, what would constitute "the clear intent," thus, wisely leaving the door open to the unexpected (such as a voter leaving the card untouched, except for writing, say, "I vote for George Bush"). In any case, changing that law was a legislative, not a judicial, task. Furthermore, all parties knew the rules when the "game" began and, however imperfect the rules, it was not appropriate to change them when the game was in progress. Amazingly, on Saturday 9th December, the Federal Supreme Court, issued a ruling that the counting be stopped, on the grounds that it would do "irreparable harm" to Bush in that there would be a "cloud" over "the legitimacy of the election". As pointed out by Ronald Dworkin (NY Review of Books Vol 48, no. 1. p. 53-55): This
Even more amazing was the further Federal Supreme Court adjudication that the Florida Supreme Court’s "clear intention of the voter" standard for manual recounts violated the equal protection clause. Given this, it was still possible for the Florida Supreme Court (i) to define a new standard (an essentially legislative act, which the Federal Supreme Count now countenanced) and (ii) to have the manual recount completed by 18th December, when the Electoral College voted. However, the Federal Supreme Court considered that the Florida legislature would want to take advantage of the Federal "safe harbor" law that guarantees immunity against the unlikely event of a Congressional challenge to the Florida result, if the counting is completed by 12th December. Dworkin pointed out:
Knowing that there were time limits, the republicans took every opportunity to delay. The Federal Supreme Court gave its final judgement only 2 hours before the 12th December "safe harbor" deadline expired, stating that the recount would have to be completed by that date. This was, or course, impossible, so that the Presidency was handed to Bush. A dissenting Supreme Court judge observed that the decision "can only lend confidence to the most cynical appraisal of judges throughout the land." Another dissenting judge considered this "self-inflicted wound … may harm not just the court, but the nation". Naked power had won over principle. "Justice" was revealed as just ice, which melts when the political temperature rises. When Gore conceded, many sighed that at least there had been a peaceful transition. But what is a "peaceful transition"? Did they really imagine that there would be a military coup in the USA?
A political transition that leads Ronald Dworkin, Professor of Law at New York University and of Jurisprudence at University College, London, to write as quoted above, may turn out to be far from peaceful. This lack of peace may not be confined to North America. A clear signal has been sent to those who have power, but hesitate to use it. Winning is more important than justice. The ends justify the means. |
