## Facts

- The 2000 presidential election in Florida produced an initial statewide vote margin favoring George W. Bush by 1,784 votes, triggering an automatic machine recount under Florida law.
- Albert Gore Jr. sought manual recounts in four Florida counties pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 102.166.
- Florida election officials and litigants disputed the scope of county canvassing boards’ authority, the Secretary of State’s discretion to accept or reject late amended returns, and the effect of statutory deadlines for certification.
- A Florida circuit court treated the 7-day deadline in Fla. Stat. § 102.111 as mandatory, but recognized potential discretion to consider later amended returns depending on circumstances.
- The Florida Supreme Court enjoined certification, interpreted Florida statutes to permit acceptance of certain late manual recount returns, and set a new return deadline of November 26, effectively extending the statutory timeline.

## Issues

1. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s post-election decision effectively altering certification procedures violated due process or conflicted with 3 U.S.C. § 5.
2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of Florida election law changed the “Manner” of appointing presidential electors in violation of Article II, § 1, cl. 2 by departing from the legislature’s scheme.
3. Whether the state court relied on the Florida Constitution in a way that constrained or displaced the legislature’s Article II authority.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court issued a unanimous per curiam decision.
- The Court did not resolve the merits of the federal constitutional or statutory challenges.
- The Court vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded for clarification because of “considerable uncertainty” about the decision’s grounds.
- The Court requested clarification on the relationship between the Florida Constitution and the legislature’s Article II authority, and on how the state court’s interpretation interacted with 3 U.S.C. § 5.

## Legal Principles

- Article II, § 1, cl. 2 assigns state legislatures primary authority to direct the “Manner” of appointing presidential electors, reflecting a federal constitutional grant.
- When state courts interpret election statutes governing presidential elector appointment, uncertainty about whether the interpretation is statutory construction or a departure from the legislative scheme can raise Article II concerns.
- 3 U.S.C. § 5 (“safe harbor”) can be relevant to interpreting a state’s election-dispute procedures enacted before Election Day; ambiguity about intended compliance may matter to federal review.
- Where the basis of a state court decision is unclear in a presidential election dispute implicating federal constraints, the Supreme Court may vacate and remand for clarification before addressing federal questions.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Florida Supreme Court’s recount-related ruling because the state-law rationale was unclear, preventing informed review of potential conflicts with Article II and the federal safe-harbor statute, 3 U.S.C. § 5.


Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000)