No. 00-836 
_____________________________________________________ 
IN THE 
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
_____________________________________________________ 
GEORGE W. BUSH, 
Petitioner, 

v. 
PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, et al. 
Respondents. 
_________________________________ 
On Petition For Writ of Certiorari 
to the Florida Supreme Court 
_________________________________ 

BROWARD COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD’S AND 
BROWARD COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION’S 
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

EDWARD A. DION 
SAMUEL S. GOREN 

County Attorney for Broward County 
Counsel of Record 

Counsel of Record 

MICHAEL D. CIRULLO 

ANDREW J. MEYERS 

Josias, Goren, Cherof, Doody & 

Chief Appellate Counsel 

Ezrol, P.A. 

NORMAN M. OSTRAU 

3099 East Commercial Blvd. 

Deputy County Attorney 

Suite 200 

TAMARA M. SCRUDDERS 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 

Assistant County Attorney 

Telephone: (954) 771-4500 

JOSE ARROJO 
Assistant County Attorney 

Counsel for the Broward County 
Government Center, Suite 423 
Supervisor of Elections 

115 South Andrews Avenue 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 
Counsel for the Broward County Canvassing Board 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

After the November 7, 2000 general election, the Broward County Canvassing Board (the 
“Board”) conducted a statutorily-mandated machine recount of the votes cast for President/Vice 
President. Consistent with the requirements of §102.166(4), Florida Statutes, the Board then 
conducted a limited manual recount of the votes cast in three precincts, which comprised more than 
one percent (1%) of the total votes cast in Broward County. The Board determined that the results 
of the limited manual recount indicated an error in vote tabulation that could affect the outcome of 
the election. As a result of this determination, the Board was statutorily required, pursuant to 
§102.166(5)(c), Florida Statutes, to conduct a county-wide manual recount of all ballots in Broward 
County cast for President of the United States. 

The Board began its full manual recount on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, at 2:00p.m.. 
From that date, the Board worked continuously, without taking any days off, even for the 
Thanksgiving holiday. Initially, the Board, as well as hundreds of county employees and party 
observers, worked from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day, but the Board increased its hours even 
further as the recount continued, working several days from 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. After 
working eleven (11) consecutive days, the manual recount concluded on Saturday, November 25, 
2000 shortly before midnight. 

As stated in the certifications attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B”, which were filed with 
the Secretary of State on November 8, 2000 and November 26, 2000, respectively, the manual 
recount resulted in One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-One (1,721) additional valid votes being 
included in the vote totals for Broward County. 

1 

ARGUMENT 

I. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING DOES NOT 
VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR 3 U.S.C. §5. 
Under 3 U.S.C. §5, a determination regarding the appointment of presidential electors 
pursuant to Florida’s Election Code “shall be conclusive” provided: 

1. The applicable provisions of the Florida Election Code were “enacted prior to the day fixed 
for appointment of the electors;” and 

2. The determination is made by December 12, 2000, which is six days prior to the meeting of 
the electors under 3 U.S.C. §7 (2000). 

A. The Supreme Court of Florida Did Not Rewrite the Applicable Provisions of the 

Florida Election Code. 

The Florida Supreme Court decision did not impose post-election judicial limitations on state 
executive officials. Nor did it impose judicially created standards for the determination of 
controversies concerning the appointment of presidential electors. Rather, the Florida Supreme 
Court’s decision interpreted existing Florida statutes as required to harmonize the various provisions 
of the Florida Election Code so as to give effect to the overall purpose and intent of Florida’s 
election laws. In the Court’s own words, the decision of the Florida Supreme Court was “consistent 
with the Florida election scheme.” 

It has long been the law in Florida that wherever it is possible to do so, a court must construe 
statutory sections so they operate in harmony with each other. Palm Harbor Special Fire Control 
District v. Kelly, 516 So.2d 249 (Fla. 1987). In this case, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision does 
exactly that, squaring the express language of Florida’s statutory provisions governing the election 
process with the intent and purpose behind those provisions. At the same time, the Florida Supreme 

2 

Court ensured that each vote in counties utilizing manual recounts can be accurately counted, and 
that Florida’s ability to appoint its electors by December 12, 2000 will not be jeopardized. 

By providing that the Secretary of State was required to accept amended certifications from 
the county canvassing boards, the Florida Supreme Court’s holding did nothing more than interpret 
Florida law in a manner to allow for what was intended-- to permit enough time for pre-certification 
manual recounts as well as post-certification contests. The Court recognized that Florida’s Election 
Code contains no deadlines for filing corrected, amended or supplemental vote returns. The Court 
further recognized that while Florida statutes specifically provide for manual recounts, the recounts 
could not be accomplished in larger counties, like Broward County, within the seven (7) day period 
contained in §102.166, Florida Statutes (2000). 

This latter recognition was confirmed by the actual experience of the Broward County 
Canvassing Board, which required eleven (11) consecutive arduous days, working long hours 
without a break, to accurately complete the recount of approximately 588,000 ballots in Broward 
County. As a result, more than 1,700 votes from Broward County not previously counted were 
included in the final vote total certified by the Secretary of State on November 26, 2000. The 
inclusion of those votes is what was intended by the Legislature when it provided for a procedure 
for manual recounts. That goal was accomplished in Broward County, with absolutely no impact 
on any other part of the election process. 

The provisions of the Florida Election Code, upon which the manual recount vote total was 
based, were enacted by the Florida Legislature prior to the day fixed for appointment of the electors. 
As such, the final vote totals from Broward County was determined consistent with 3 U.S.C. §5. 

3 

B. Contrary to Petitioner’s Assertions, Neither the Decision of the Supreme Court of 

Florida Nor the Board’s Manual Recount Thwart the Will of the Electorate. 

In its introduction, Petitioner asserts that the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida 
“appears designed to thwart the will of the electorate . . ..” To the contrary, the will of the electorate 

can only be determined by counting all votes as to which the clear intent of the voter can be 
determined. Given the problems clearly evident with machine vote tabulation in Broward County, 
the Board determined that the manual recount was necessary to determine the true vote totals. 

Petitioner further argues that the efforts of the Broward County Canvassing Board were 
“unrestrained by statutory guidance[.]” This allegation is simply not true. Florida Statute 
§101.5614(5) provides: “No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the 
intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board.” This statutory mandate guided all 
decisions of the Broward County Canvassing Board. 

Petitioner also asserts that the act of manually recounting ballots, which requires handling 
of the ballots, undermined the physical integrity of the ballots. There is no evidence before this 
Court to support that bald assertion. Petitioner’s failure to cite to any record support equates to an 
admission that none exists. 

II. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IS NOT 
INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 
2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

As indicated in Section I of this Response, the Florida Supreme Court decision is consistent 
with Florida Statutes enacted before the election was held. The argument in Section I is incorporated 
here as Broward County Canvassing Board’s response to Question II presented by the Petitioner. 
It is further submitted that, based on those arguments, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision is not 

4 

inconsistent with Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution. 

III. IF THIS COURT WERE TO FIND THAT THE FLORIDA 
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 
3 U.S.C. §5, MORE THAN 1,700 VOTERS WOULD BE 
NEEDLESSLY DISENFRANCHISED. 

The Broward County Canvassing Board has invested substantial time and effort in 
painstakingly examining each ballot cast in Broward County to determine the true intent of each 
voter and to reach an accurate count of votes cast. The Board’s efforts were consistent with Florida 
law and pursuant to the clear direction of the Florida Supreme Court. 

The direct result of any decision reversing the Florida Supreme Court will be the 
disenfranchisement of more than 1,700 Broward County voters who validly and lawfully filled in 
ballots which would be rendered meaningless solely because of the limitations of the county’s 
machine counting system. 

CONCLUSION 

Wherefore the Broward County Canvassing Board respectfully requests this Court deny the 
writ of certiorari requested by Petitioners, allowing Broward County’s amended certification to 
stand. 

5 

Respectfully submitted, 
EDWARD A. DION 
Broward County Attorney 
Governmental Center, Suite 423 
115 South Andrews Avenue 
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 
Telephone: (954) 357-7600 
Facsimile: (954) 357-7641 
By: 
EDWARD A. DION 
Florida Bar No. 267732 
Counsel of Record 
ANDREW J. MEYERS 
Chief Appellate Counsel 
Florida Bar No. 709816 
NORMAN M. OSTRAU 
Deputy County Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 273971 
TAMARA M. SCRUDDERS 
Assistant County Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 868426 
JOSE ARROJO 
Assistant County Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 744808 
Counsel for Broward County Canvassing Bd. 
SAMUEL S. GOREN 
MICHAEL D. CIRULLO 
Josias, Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. 
3099 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 200 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 
By: __________________________ 

SAMUEL S. GOREN 
Fla. Bar No. 205850 
MICHAEL D. CIRULLO 
Fla. Bar No. 973180 
Counsel for Broward County Supervisor of 
Elections 

6