No. ______ In The Supreme Court of the United States ____________ ROBERT C. TOUCHSTON, DEBORAH SHEPPERD, and DIANA L. TOUCHSTON, Petitioners, v. MICHAEL MCDERMOTT, ET AL., Respondents. ____________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ____________ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari ____________ Alan P. Dye James Bopp, Jr.* WEBSTER, CHAMBERLAIN & Heidi K. Meyer BEAN James R. Mason, III 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Richard E. Coleson Washington, DC 20006 JAMES MADISON CENTER FOR Ph. 202/785-9500 FREE SPEECH Fx. 202/835-0243 BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM 1 South 6th Street [Additional counsel listed in- Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 side front cover.] Ph. 812/232-2434 Fx. 812/235-3685 December 8, 2000 *Counsel of Record Counsel for Petitioners Eric C. Bohnet B. Chad Bungard Justin David Bristol J. Aaron Kirkpatrick JAMES MADISON CENTER FOR FREE SPEECH BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM 1 South 6th Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 Ph. 812/232-2434 Fx. 812/235-3685 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Certified Florida election results for Presidential Electors contain votes reconstructed pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 102.166 ("the Manual Recount Statute"). The Supreme Court of Florida may imminently order the Florida Secretary of State to certify more votes reconstructed under this statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit refused preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to voters claiming vote dilution, which raises three substantial federal questions warranting immediate review by this Court: 1. Whether the dilution of a voter's vote without more constitutes irreparable harm. 2. Whether the manual recount provisions of the Manual Recount Statute create an unconstitutional two-tiered system for counting votes by allowing a candidate to seek, and willing county canvassing boards in their absolute discretion to grant, manual recounts of votes in only selective vote-rich counties to the partisan advantage of one candidate, thus diluting and debasing the vote of those who voted in counties where no manual recount would be conducted. 3. Whether the Manual Recount Statute is unconstitutional because it: (a) lacks standards circumscribing a county's power to grant or deny a manual recount; (b) lacks standards to determine a valid vote during a manual recount, resulting in the use of vague, subjective, arbitrary and capricious standards, developed ad hoc and ex post facto, to count votes cast contrary to instruc- tions given voters in the voting booth and contrary to the stan- dards used to count votes in past elections; and (c) fails to provide fundamental fairness and due process to the non-requesting candidate and voters. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The following individuals and entities are parties to the proceeding in the court below: Robert C. Touchston, Deborah Shepperd, Diana L. Touchston; Plaintiffs-Appellants; George W. Bush, as candidate for president; Intervenor- Appellee (did not file notice of appeal so as to be listed as appellant); Michael McDermott, Ann McFall, Pat Northy, Theresa LePore, Charles E. Burton, Carol Roberts, Jane Carroll, Suzanne Gunzburger, Robert Lee, David Leahy, Lawrence King, Jr., and Miriam Lehr, in their official capacities as members of the County Canvassing Boards of Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties, respectively ("County Defendants"); Katherine Harris, in her official capacities as Secretary of the Department of State and as a member of the Elections Canvassing Commission; Clay Roberts and Bob Crawford, in their official capacity as members of the Elections Canvassing Commission ("State Defendants"); Defendants-Appellees; The Florida Democratic Party; Intervenor-Appellee; and Attorney Gen. Robert Butterworth (filed ungranted motion to intervene). CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT No parties are corporations. Sup. Ct. R. 29.6. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Parties to the Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Corporate Disclosure Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Opinions Below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reasons for Granting the Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I. This Case Involves Matters of Great Impor- tance, Including the Right Not to Have One's Vote Diluted and Who Shall Be Presi- dent of the United States of America. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 II. The Courts Below Erred in Denying Injunc- tive Relief, Disregarding the Irreparable Harm of Vote Dilution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Voters Suffer Irreparable Harm. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Vote Dilution Itself Is an Irreparable Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Voters Currently Suffer Ir- reparable Harm and the Im- minent Threat of Further Irreparable Harm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 iv 3. The Court of Appeal's Deci- sion Creates a Split in the Circuits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Voters Have Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 (1). The Two-Tier Manual Recount System Dilutes the Votes of Florida Voters and, thereby, Denies Them Equal Pro- tection of the Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 (2). This Court Should Exercise Jurisdiction Because This Case Involves Systematic Denial of Equality in Voting. . . . . . . . . 24 C. The Balance of Harms Favors Voters. . . . . . 25 D. The Public Interest Requires Injunctive Relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix (separately bound) v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . 23 Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1975) . . . . . . . . . 13 Brewer v. The West Irondequoit Central School District, 212 F.3d 738 (2nd Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Broward County Canvassing Board v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508 (Fla. App. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Burke v. Beasley, 75 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 2000 WL 1769093 (Dec. 4, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . 21 Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2nd Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . 17 Department of Commerce v. United States House of Repre- sentatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 20 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Gamza v. Aguirre, 619 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . 25 Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. The Superior Court of the State of California, 739 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . 17 Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 26 vi Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir. 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Hendon v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, 710 F.2d 177 (4th Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2nd Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Mitchum, DBA Book Mart v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) . . . 7 Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 19 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 120 S. Ct. 897 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 11 Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Statharos v. New York Taxi and Limousine Commission, 198 F.3d 317 (2nd Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Thornburg v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecol- ogists, 467 U.S. 747 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Touchston v. McDermott, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 30781 (Dec. 6, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 vii United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520 (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 United States v. Mosely, 238 U.S. 383 (1880) . . . . . . . . . 19, 21 United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, 484 U.S. 383 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Wesbury v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1(1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1885) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Zablocki, Milwaukee County Clerk v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Statutes 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/23-23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 21-A § 737-A (1999) . . . . . . . 20 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 U.S.C. § 5 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 U.S.C. § 7 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 7 Fla. Stat. § 102.111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Fla. Stat. § 102.155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Fla. Stat. § 102.155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Fla. Stat. § 102.166 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim viii Fla. Stat. § 102.166(1)-(7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Fla. Stat. § 102.166(4)(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fla. Stat. § 102.166(5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Fla. Stat. § 102.166(7)(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Fla. Stat. § 102.168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Fla. Stat. § 102.168(3)(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Fla. Stat. § 103.011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Fla. Stat. §102.141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ind. Code § 3-12-6-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Ind. Code § 3-12-6-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Md. Code Ann., Elections § 12-102 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:28-4 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Other Authorities Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 460 (1871) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 U.S. Const. amend. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 18 U.S. Const. art. III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioners ("Voters") respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari be issued to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this case. Because their votes have been diluted by manual recounts under Florida Statute § 102.166, which creates an unconstitutional two-tiered system for standardless "reconstruction" of votes in selective counties, Voters are irreparably harmed. Votes "reconstructed" pursuant to this unconstitutional scheme are already in the totals certified for Presidential electors, and there is imminent threat that more fruit of this poisonous tree will be added to certified totals. Both the legitimacy of the Presidential election ­ and perhaps the choice of the President ­ are jeopardized by this unconstitutional statute. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App. 1-61a) is reported at 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 30781 (Dec. 6, 2000). The opinion of the district court (App. 162a-174a) is not yet reported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the United State Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was entered on December 6, 2000. App. 1-2a. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED The U.S. Constitution provides: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representa- tives to wh