[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Page 27103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        SUPREME COURT'S DECISION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to note my strong 
objection to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the matter of the 
State of Florida's recount of undercounted ballots in the November 7th, 
2000 Presidential election. I believe that it was wrong for the U.S. 
Supreme Court to overrule the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of 
Florida in a matter that was strictly within the law and purview of the 
law of the State of Florida.
  The principles of equal protection of the law have never required the 
U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to provide uniformity in the form of 
the ballot, within a state or among the states, nor has it required 
uniformity in the method used to tally the votes cast.
  The State of Florida as elsewhere in the country has allowed each 
county or similar political subdivision to determine on its own the 
form of the ballot, and the manner of machine or handcount that is to 
be used.
  If standards or requirements of uniformity are needed to conform to 
equal protection requirements, then all ballots and all counts in 
Florida are null and void. There were no standards and certainly no 
uniformity in how the counts were established by initio.
  The Court examined the recount process in an effort to find some way 
to invalidate what the Florida court has ordered.
  Had the U.S. Supreme Court been interested in making every vote count 
in Florida, it could have easily remanded the case back to the Florida 
Supreme Court, established the uniform standard to be used, and allowed 
the count to proceed.
  Instead, in remanding the matter to the Florida Supreme Court it 
noted that the time had run out.
  There was no basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that December 
12 was an absolute deadline. If it had to rely on a deadline why not 
December 18. It didn't use December 18 because that would have allowed 
enough time for the recount to have been completed.
  Even December 18 is not a real deadline. In 1960, Hawaii Democrats 
went to court to ask for a recount, after the Lt. Governor had 
certified the results of the Presidential election. The Court ordered a 
statewide recount which took until December 27 to complete. It was not 
transmitted to Washington, D.C. until early January. When the Joint 
Session met on January 6, 1961, there were three certifications on the 
Speaker's desk. One sent from Hawaii on November 28, the one announced 
by the electors on December 19, and the one sent by the Court after the 
recount.
  On election night 1960 Hawaii throught that Kennedy had won by 92 
votes. The next morning the ``final'' tabulation had Nixon winning by 
142 votes. After the court ordered recount Kennedy was ahead by 115 
votes.
  Vice President Nixon presided over the Joint Session on January 6, 
1961 and declared that Kennedy had won Hawaii.
  As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, the Hawaii court ordered 
recount took precedence over the State's Lt. Governor's certification 
done pursuant to state law, and even took precedence over the electors 
announced vote on December 18.
  In the Hawaii case, December 12, and December 18 were not regarded as 
deadlines that would interfere with the state Judiciary's power and 
responsibility to make sure that all of the votes were properly 
counted. The Republican Governor William Quinn, the Republican Lt. 
Governor James Kealoha, and the Republican United States Senator Hiram 
Fong all agreed that Kennedy had indeed carried the state of Hawaii in 
the 1960 Presidential election.
  I see no justification for the U.S. Supreme Court's interference in 
the 2000 presidential election.
  Florida could have taken until December 31st to recount all of its 
ballots. The December 12th deadline was arbitrary.
  The people of America have been cheated of a full and fair outcome.
  I especially resent those who asked that Vice President Gore not 
contest the outcome in Florida. Without Florida he was the clear 
winner. He had won 267 electoral votes. Bush only had 246 votes without 
Florida. In addition Gore had won the nationwide popular vote as well. 
Gore had the duty to defend the outcome, not as he wished, but as the 
voters all across the country had determined. He had no right to 
concede the outcome without a fierce defense. It was not his to 
concede. Fifty million voters had expressed their will. A Florida 
recount was needed to validate their choice.

                          ____________________