https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article246920577.html
When the 2000 election result was disputed, Al Gore put his country before himself
Twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, ending the Florida recount and handing the presidency to George W. Bush. Conservative justices, creating a new interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, held the recount unconstitutional because it allowed for disparities among counties as to how voter intent could be inferred from disputed ballots.
It was a questionable decision. Voting practices in the United States are decentralized and counties differ widely in how they interpret voter intent. The court’s decision, if taken seriously, would redo much of our electoral system. Tellingly, the conservative justices would not go that far, ruling that their new equal protection approach was “limited to the present circumstances.”
The real story of Bush v. Gore, however, lies less in its legal particulars than in how it avoided a constitutional crisis. The lesson is worth remembering.
Excluding Florida, Gore had won the electoral vote by 267 to 246 and the popular vote by over 500,000. In Florida, initial returns placed Bush ahead of Gore by 1,784 votes out of 6,000,000. A recount was clearly in the making.
That recount, however, was destined for partisan stalemate. The Florida Supreme Court, which authorized the recount, was controlled by Democrats. The Florida Legislature, empowered to submit its own delegate slate, was controlled by Republicans. Florida was set to submit two competing slates of electors.
In such circumstances, the Constitution gives Congress the power to choose between competing slates; but again, stalemate was inevitable. The Republicans controlled the House. The Democrats controlled the Senate but only because the vice-president had the power to cast the tie-breaking vote. That vice-president was Al Gore.
The next step was also infused with partisan taint. The federal Electoral Count Act authorizes a state’s governor to certify the state’s electors if Congress is deadlocked. That governor was Jeb Bush, George W. Bush’s brother.
More importantly, any action by Jeb Bush would also be challenged, leading to another round of judicial decisions. Meanwhile, the hyper-partisan warfare already overtaking the nation would become far worse.
Enter the Supreme Court. It was the only institution that could end the agony and bestow legitimacy on the final result. It had to act. To be sure, it could have ruled differently and upheld the recount; but it could not let the process extend endlessly. And so the presidency was decided.
There is a hero in this story: Al Gore. Gore had ample reason to reject the Supreme Court’s decision and fight on. He had won the popular vote. He had won an electoral vote majority outside of Florida. He could claim that more Floridians intended to vote for him but his winning margin was lost because Palm Beach County’s confusing, butterfly ballot led hundreds of his supporters to mistakenly mark their ballots for third party candidate Pat Buchanan. He could have attacked the Supreme Court decision as illegitimately motivated by partisan politics.
He did none of the above. Instead, he conceded and urged his supporters to unite behind President Bush: “[O]ur disappointment must be overcome by our love of country. . . . This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.”
Al Gore understood that his duty to his country was greater than his duty to himself. Today, in contrast, the president urges his supporters to reject adverse results. We have throughout our history been blessed with many leaders who understood the sacred obligations of the highest office. Tragically, we have no such blessing now.
No comments:
Post a Comment