## Facts

- After the November 7, 2000 presidential election in Florida, the reported statewide margin between the Republican and Democratic tickets was about 1,784 votes (under 0.5%).
- Florida law required an automatic machine recount because the margin was within the statutory threshold; the Republican ticket remained ahead after that recount.
- The Florida Democratic Party requested manual recounts in four counties: Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia.
- The Republican presidential candidates (and several Florida voters) sued county election officials and canvassing boards in federal court seeking emergency relief to stop the manual recounts.
- Plaintiffs alleged that (1) conducting manual recounts only in selected counties, and (2) using non-uniform standards for determining voter intent in manual recounts, violated Equal Protection and Due Process and burdened First Amendment interests.
- The district court denied a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; plaintiffs took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on claims that selective county manual recounts and allegedly non-uniform counting standards violated Equal Protection, Due Process, or the First Amendment.
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable injury absent an injunction halting the manual recounts.
3. Whether the balance of harms and the public interest favored federal court intervention to stop recount activity during a close statewide election.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on the limited, expedited record.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm warranting the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction.
- The result allowed the requested county manual recounts to proceed while the broader election dispute continued.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires proof of (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs harm from an injunction, and (4) that an injunction would not disserve the public interest.
- Federal courts should be cautious about disrupting state election administration on an emergency record, particularly where the asserted constitutional violations are not clearly established by evidence.
- Equal Protection and Due Process challenges to recount procedures require more than speculative allegations; plaintiffs must show concrete, legally cognizable harm and a record supporting the claimed constitutional defect.
- Lack of uniform recount standards or selective recount activity, standing alone and without a developed evidentiary showing (including proof of discriminatory or arbitrary treatment sufficient for the asserted claims), may be insufficient to justify preliminary injunctive relief.
- Alleged injuries are not irreparable where they are conjectural or potentially remediable through later proceedings; voter-plaintiffs must identify more than generalized dissatisfaction with recount procedures.

## Conclusion

The en banc Eleventh Circuit affirmed denial of an injunction to stop Florida county manual recounts because, on an expedited and limited record, plaintiffs did not establish a substantial likelihood of success on their constitutional theories or the concrete irreparable harm required for preliminary injunctive relief.


Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)