No. 00-949 In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ------- ------- GEORGE W. BUSH AND RICHARD CHENEY, Petitioners, v. ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL., Respondents. ------- ------- On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida ------- ------- BRIEF FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA, BY AND THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING REVERSAL ------- ------- BILL PRYOR Attorney General of Alabama Counsel of Record CHARLES B. CAMPBELL SCOTT L. ROUSE A. VERNON BARNETT IV Assistant Attorneys General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ALABAMA 11 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152 (334) 242-7300 Counsel for Amicus Curiae i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred in establishing new standards for resolving presidential election contests that conflict with legislative enactments and thereby violate Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which provides that electors shall be appointed by each State "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." 2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred in establishing post-election judicially created standards that threaten to overturn the certified results of the election for President in the State of Florida and that fail to comply with the requirements of 3 U.S.C. § 5, which gives conclusive effect to state court determinations only if those determinations are made "pursuant to" "laws enacted prior to" election day. 3. Whether the use of arbitrary, standardless and selective manual recounts to determine the results of a presidential election, including post- election judicially created selective and capricious recount procedures, that vary both across counties and within counties in the State of Florida violates the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Question Presented .............................................................i Table of Contents ...............................................................ii Table of Authorities...........................................................iv Interest of Amicus Curiae .................................................. 1 Summary of Argument....................................................... 3 Argument............................................................................ 4 I. Material Post-Election Changes In State Canvassing Procedures Violate Due Process............... 4 A. Roe v. Alabama ....................................................... 5 B. The Costs and Consequences of Roe v. Alabama................................................................ 10 C. Other Cases Invalidating Post Hoc Changes in Election Procedures.......................................... 11 II. The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida Violates Article II of the Constitution, 3 U.S.C. § 5, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments............................................................... 14 A. The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida Retroactively Changed Florida Election Procedures - Again. .............................. 14 B. Counting Partially Punched Ballots Without Clear, Uniform Standards Attributes Political Speech to Voters Without Their Consent and Dilutes Proper Votes by "Stuffing the Ballot Box."....................... 18 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page C. By Changing the Definition of a "Valid Vote" and the Statutory Protest and Contest Periods, the Florida Supreme Court Gave an Unfair Advantage to a Campaign That Chose to "Front-Load" Its Challenges into the Protest Period.......................................... 23 III. The Florida Supreme Court Unleashed Arbitrary Recounts That Violate Due Process and Equal Protection.................................................. 25 IV. This Case Illustrates the Imperative of Legislative, Not Judicial, Supremacy in Establishing Election Rules to Ensure Fundamental Fairness. .............................................. 28 Conclusion ........................................................................ 30 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases: Anderson v. Celebreeze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)....................................................... 3 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)............................................... 18, 23 Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 967 (1976)................................ 16 Briscoe v. Kusper, 435 F.2d 1046 (7th Cir. 1970) ..................................... 12 Brown v. O'Brien, 469 U.S. 563 (D.C. Cir.), stay granted, 409 U.S. 1 (per curiam), vacated as moot, 409 U.S. 816 (1972) ............................................................. 12, 25 Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. ___ (2000) ............................................. passim Curry v. Baker, 802 F.2d 1302, 1315 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1023 (1986)................................ 5 Davis v. Alabama, 516 U.S. 908 (1995)....................................................... 9 Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. Unit B. Sept. 1981), cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1012 (1982)..................... 5, 13 Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)............................................... 18, 22 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page(s) Gore v. Harris, No. SC00-2431 (Fla. Dec. 8, 2000)...................... passim Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)......................................... 21­22, 23 Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir. 1978) ............................... 12, 13 Hellums v. Alabama, 516 U.S. 938 (1995)................................................. 1, 10 Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Political Committee, 625 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1993) .......................................... 16 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) ........................................................ 18 Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551 (1940)..................................................... 14 Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969)..................................................... 25 O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974)..................................................... 25 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utility Commission, 475 U.S. 1 (1986)................................... 19 Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, Nos. SC00-2346, SC00-2348, and SC00-2349 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2000), vacated sub nom. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. ___ (2000) .................................................... passim vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page(s) Partido Nuevo Progresista v. Barreto Perez, 639 F.2d 825 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 985 (1981).................................. 7 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)....................................................... 4 Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir. 1995) ("Roe I") ................ passim Roe v. Alabama, 52 F.3d 300 (11th Cir. 1995) ("Roe II"), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 908 (1995)........................ passim Roe v. Alabama, 68 F.3d 404 (11th Cir.) ("Roe III"), stay denied, 516 U.S. 938 (1995) ........................ passim Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd., 676 So. 2d 1206 (Ala. 1995) .......................................... 8 Roe v. Mobile County Appointing Bd., 904 F. Supp. 1315 (S.D. Ala.), aff'd sub nom. Roe v. Alabama, 68 F.3d 404 (11th Cir.), stay denied, 516 U.S. 938 (1995)...................................... 1­2 Siegel v. LePore, No. 00-15981 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2000) ........................ 28 Touchston v. McDermott, No. 00-15985 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2000) ............ 21, 25, 28 United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944)................................... 18, 21, 22, 23 Welch v. McKenzie, 765 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1985)....................................... 5 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page(s) West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)............................................... 21, 22 Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) .................................................. 4, 19 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)............................................... 19, 22 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)....................................................... 4 Constitutional Provisions and Statutes: U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2...................................... passim U.S. Const. amend. I ................................................ passim U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1..................................... passim 3 U.S.C. § 2 (1994)............................................................ 30 3 U.S.C. § 5 (1994).................................................... passim 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) ...................................................... 6 Ala. Code § 17-10-10 (Supp. 2000) ..................................... 2 Ala. Code § 17-15-6 (1995)........................................ 8, 9, 29 Ala. Code §§ 17-15-50 to 17-15-63 (1995)......................... 29 Ala. Code § 17-15-52 (1995).......................................... 8 Fla. Const. art. V, § 3(b)(5)............................................... 15 Fla. Stat. § 101.46 (2000) ................................................. 20 Fla. Stat. § 102.112 (2000) ............................................... 24 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page(s) Fla. Stat. § 102.166 (2000) ......................................... 17, 27 Fla. Stat. § 102.168 (2000) ......................................... 15, 17 Court Rules: Sup. Ct. R. 37.4................................................................... 1 Other Authorities: 18 Cong. Rec. 47 (Dec. 8, 1886) ........................................ 29 Ala. Rptr., 656­659 So. 2d................................................ 10 The Federalist No. 45 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ...................................................... 30 Opinion to the Hon. Leland Avery, Hale County Probate Judge, Ala. A.G. Op. No. 2000-180 (June 26, 2000) .......................................... 2 Opinion to the Hon. Jim Bennett, Secretary of State, Ala. A.G. Op. No. 99-00227 (May 31, 1996) ............................................................... 2 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The State of Alabama, by and through its Attorney General, Bill Pryor, and Secretary of State, Jim Bennett, respectfully submits this Brief as amicus curiae pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 37.4. Amicus submits this Brief because of the striking similarities between this case and an Alabama case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit five years ago, Roe v. Alabama, involving the counting of unwitnessed absentee ballots in the 1994 election for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. That case resulted in a series of decisions from the Eleventh Circuit holding that a post-election change in the procedures for counting absentee ballots violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, which require state election procedures to be fundamentally fair. See Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir.) ("Roe I") (certifying question to Supreme Court of Alabama), remanded to district court for evidentiary hearing after certified question answered, 52 F.3d 300 (11th Cir.) ("Roe II"), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 908, appeal after remand to district court, 68 F.3d 404 (11th Cir.) ("Roe III"), stay denied sub nom. Hellums v. Alabama, 516 U.S. 938 (1995). The Petitioner in this case expressly relied upon these decisions of the Eleventh Circuit in requesting review by this Court in both this case and the earlier decision of this Court. See Emergency App. for Stay at 38; Pet. Br. at 28, Pet. Reply Br. at 19, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. ___ (2000) (No. 00-836). The State of Alabama, by and through its Attorney General, and the Secretary of State of Alabama were defendants in Roe v. Alabama. See Roe I, 43 F.3d at 574; Roe II, 52 F.3d at 300; Roe III, 68 F.3d at 404. The current Attorney General of Alabama, then a deputy attorney general, personally represented the State and the current Secretary of State in that litigation. See Roe II, 52 F.3d at 300; Roe III, 68 F.3d at 404; see also Roe v. 2 Mobile County Appointing Bd., 904 F. Supp 1316, 1317 (S.D. Ala.), aff'd sub nom. Roe v. Alabama, 68 F.3d 404 (11th Cir.), stay denied, 516 U.S. 938 (1995). Relying on the constitutional principles applied in Roe v. Alabama, the State of Alabama reformed its election laws to ensure that Alabama courts cannot change the rules for counting absentee ballots after an election. See Ala. Code § 17-10-10 (Supp. 2000) ("No court or other election tribunal shall allow the counting of an absentee ballot with respect to which the voter's affidavit signature (or mark) is not witnessed by the signatures of two witnesses 18 years of age or older or a notary public (or other officer authorized to acknowledge oaths) . . . ."). The Attorney General and Secretary of State have relied on Roe v. Alabama in enforcing the election laws of Alabama, advising election officials, and ensuring that election procedures in Alabama are and remain fundamentally fair. See, e.g., Opinion to the Hon. Leland Avery, Hale County Probate Judge, Ala. A.G. Op. No. 2000-180, at 4 (June 26, 2000) ("[T]he United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a systematic counting of unwitnessed and unnotarized absentee ballots violates the voting rights of those voters who complied with the statutory mandates."); Opinion to the Hon. Jim Bennett, Secretary of State, Ala. A.G. Op. No. 99-00227, at 3 (May 31, 1996) ("In this circumstance, under the Roe decision, the state election officials cannot count unwitnessed absentee ballots without violating the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment."). Having now relied on the principles of due process and equal protection applied in Roe v. Alabama for several years, amicus has a profound interest in seeing those principles upheld and consistently enforced. This is especially true in the unique context of the election of the 3 President and Vice President of the United States, in which all States have a profound interest. As this Court has acknowledged, in the context of a presidential election, state- impose