No. 00-836 

IN THE 

Supreme Court of the United States 
Supreme Court of the United States 

George W. Bush, 

Petitioner, 

v. 
Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, et al., 
Respondents. 

On Writ of Certiorari 
to the Supreme Court of Florida 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS 
AL GORE, JR., AND FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

(Additional Counsel Listed 
Laurence H. Tribe 

In Signature Block) 

(Counsel of Record) 

Hauser Hall 420 
1575 Massachusetts Ave. 
Cambridge, MA 02138 

November 30, 2000 

I. PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS CLAIM WAS NOT 

PROPERLY RAISED AND HAS NO MERIT. 

Petitioner’s opening brief contained no separate due process 
argument and mentioned the phrases “due process” and “fundamental 
fairness” only in passing, as part of a discussion of Roe 
v. Alabama, 

43 F.3d 474 (CA 11 1995) (per curiam). See Pet.Br. 28. 
Accordingly, Respondents had no occasion to respond to any due 
process issue in their reply brief. However, Petitioner’s reply brief 
now seeks to resurrect a due process claim. Pet. Reply Br.18-19. 
That attempt is improper, both because the claim was not raised 
adequately in the opening brief and because it seeks to smuggle in 
questions relating to the conduct of manual recounts on which this 
Court has denied certiorari. In any event the claim has no merit. The 
Florida Supreme Court’s decision did not constitute a retroactive 
change in the law at all. Even if it had constituted such a change, it 
would not have deprived Petitioner of any protected liberty or 
property interest or worked any unfairness, for the reasons we have 
already stated in our opening brief, at pp. 44-49. 

II. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FLORIDA 
LEGISLATURE CAN AT THIS TIME APPOINT ITS 
OWN ELECTORS BY STATUTE IS NOT BEFORE 
THIS COURT FOR DECISION. 

Petitioner’s Reply Brief continues to press arguments that 
simply are not encompassed by the questions that this Court agreed 
to decide. Thus, Petitioner and his amici have continually raised the 
possibility that the Florida Legislature might convene to enact 
legislation intended to appoint Florida’s electors if the State’s courts 
fail conclusively to decide the disputes pending before them by 
December 12th. Pet. Reply Br. at 19-20. The validity of speculative 

2 

future conduct by the Florida Legislature is not before this Court. It 
is quite clear in particular that the question whether such state 
legislation in the wake of an election is authorized by 3 U.S.C. § 2 is 
not before this Court for decision. The questions presented by 
petitioners and the additional question suggested by this Court are 
directed entirely at the validity of the Florida Supreme Court’s action 
as measured against 3 U.S.C. § 5 and Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the 
United States Constitution. Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) 
(question not presented in petition for certiorari will not be 
considered); General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric 
Co., 304 U.S. 175, 177-78 (1938). 

CONCLUSION 

The judgment should be affirmed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Teresa Wynn Roseborough 
Laurence H. Tribe 

David I. Adelman 

(Counsel of Record) 

James A. Orr 

Hauser Hall 420 

John H. Fleming 

1575 Massachusetts Ave. 

999 Peachtree St, NE 
Cambridge, MA 02138 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

David Boies 

Ronald A. Klain 
Boies, Schiller & Flexner 
Andrew J. Pincus 

80 Business Park Dr., Ste. 110 

c/o Gore/Lieberman Recount 

Armonk, NY 10504 

430 S. Capitol St. 
Washington, DC 20003 

Kathleen M. Sullivan 
559 Nathan Abbott Way 
Kendall Coffey 

Stanford, CA 94305 
Coffey Diaz & O’Naghten 
2665 South Bayshore Dr. 

Thomas C. Goldstein 
Miami, FL 33133 

Amy Howe 

4607 Asbury Pl., NW 
Washington, DC 20016 

3 

Jonathan S. Massey 
Peter J. Rubin 

3920 Northampton St., NW 
Neal K. Katyal 

Washington, DC 20015 
Georgetown Univ. Law Ctr. 

600 New Jersey Ave., NW 
November 30, 2000 Washington, DC 20001