Editing Bush v. Gore (section)

==Relevant law==
{{main|Electoral Count Act}}
The [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] is the U.S. Constitutional provision on which the decision in ''Bush v. Gore'' was based.<ref name="BushVGore103">{{ussc|name=Bush v. Gore|volume=531|page=98|pin=103|year=2000}} ("The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. § 5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.")</ref> [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Method of choosing electors|Article II, § 1, cl. 2]] of the Constitution specifies the number of electors per state, and, most relevant to this case,<ref name="BushVGore103" /> the manner in which those electors are selected, stipulating:

{{blockquote|Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors{{nbsp}}...}}

This clause arguably gives power to only one branch of Florida's state government: the state legislature.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gillman |first1=Howard |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i2gUgRh_HTgC&pg=PA82 |title=The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election |date=July 5, 2003 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=9780226294087 |page=82 |archive-url=https://openlibrary.org/works/OL16068201W/The_votes_that_counted?edition=key%3A/books/OL24965838M |archive-date=2011-08-12}}</ref>

Section 2 of the [[Electoral Count Act]], now codified in [[s:United States Code/Title 3/Chapter 1#§ 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors|3 U.S.C. § 5]], regulates the "determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"<ref name="usc3-5title">{{Cite web |title=3 U.S. Code § 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5 |access-date=2024-11-01 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> in presidential elections. Of particular relevance<ref name="BushVGore103"/> to this case was the so-called "[[Safe harbor (law)|safe harbor]]" provision, which assures Congress's deference to states in their appointments of electors if done by a specified deadline:

{{blockquote|If any State shall have provided ... for its final determination of ... the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State ... at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination ... shall be conclusive.<ref name="usc3-5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5|title=3 U.S. Code § 5 – Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors|website=LII / Legal Information Institute}}</ref>}}

Since the electors were set to meet December 18, the discretional "safe harbor" deadline was December 12, just one day after the Court heard oral arguments in this case. According to {{UnitedStatesCode|28|1257}}:

{{blockquote|Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of ''[[certiorari]]'' where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States{{nbsp}}...}}