Florida law in this matter provided some odd provisions for closure. First, an automatic recount is invoked when elections are close. This requires no intervention or agreement from political bodies but is rather part of the process of counting the votes. Then there is a one-week protest phase before the vote is certified by Florida Secretary of State. During this phase, candidates may protest to each county wh

ere they have a dispute. After certification begins the contest phase, a legal proceeding in court that can result in ineligible votes being thrown out or a recount being ordered. Here again, candidates are contesting the tallies of the specific counties where they feel inadequacies.

In this tightly held race, every action was followed by a lawsuit. When canvassing boards did recounts, the Bush team lobbied to stop them. When these boards stopped their recounts, the Gore team lobbied to have them restarted. With the Florida statute vesting so much discretion in the hands of the canvassing boards and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the methods and legality of the recounts came into question. Also, with so much dispute over legalities, it was improbable that a concrete, much less impartial, decision could be made by the officials held by the two parties contending for the election. The only recourse seemed to be to leave the battles to the respective legal teams. In such a case, it is unlikely that a resolution could have been reached without intervention of the courts.

One scenario might have been for two slates of Florida electors to show up. Both these electors would try to cast votes for the Presidency. In such a situation the Constitution provides no clear-cut resolution. It provides no manner for which the votes are counted much less the oddity of multiple slates of electors. The United States Congress would be forced to make a high-profile decision that disenfranchised rather than created constituencies. Politically, the members of Congress prefer the courts to make the decision in such issues. With Supreme Court judges holding lifetime appointments, the threat of public scrutiny does not extend to the ballot box.

The issues bringing in U.S. Supreme Court had to do with Article 2 of the Constitution and, more loosely, on the equal protection clause. In Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United State Constitution, the states are granted the right to appoint presidential electors in the manner directed by the state legislatures. In Florida this is done through a popular election, as in all other states, followed by the possibility of protests and contests. When the Florida Supreme Court decided to extend the deadline for vote certification, the U.S. Supreme Court saw a possible violation of this "manner directed" clause. The Supreme Court wrote that the Constitution vests the manner of appointment of presidential electors to the legislature and not the courts. The Court saw that the Florida legislature intended to meet the safe harbor clause provided in federal statute by setting a stringent deadline for certification. Therefore, the courts cannot rewrite law by extending deadlines for certification. Furthermore, an issue of equal protection was presented. In the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, when a s

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court's, Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, George Bush, Wade Court, Florida Secretary, Justice Scalia, Florida Legislature, Bill Clinton, Court Florida, supreme court, florida supreme, florida supreme court, supreme court's, florida statute, equal protection, court limited, article 2, based political leanings, harbor clause, safe harbor, meet safe harbor, canvassing boards, clause provided federal, harbor clause provided,
Approximate Word count = 1934
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)