IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC00-2346, SC00-2348, & SC00-2349 PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, et al., Petitioners vs. KATHERINE HARRIS, et. al., Respondents. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and FLORIDA SENATE THOMAS R. TEDCASTLE Counsel for Amicus Curiae, The Florida House General Counsel of Representatives Florida House of Representatives Florida Bar No. 0245291 826 The Capitol D. STEPHEN KAHN 402 South Monroe Street General Counsel Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 The Florida Senate Phone: (850) 488-5644 Florida Bar No. 99740 Fax: (850) 487-1336 409 The Capitol 402 South Monroe Street EINER ELHAUGE Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 1575 Massachusetts Ave. Phone: (850) 487-5229 Cambridge, MA 02138 Fax: (850) 487-5800 Telephone: (617) 496-0860 Fax: (617) 496-0861 ROGER J. MAGNUSON JAMES K. LANGDON CHARLES FRIED Dorsey & Whitney LLP 1545 Massachusetts Ave. Pillsbury Center South Cambridge, MA 02138 220 South Sixth St. Telephone: (617) 495-4636 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Fax: (617) 496-4865 Telephone: (612) 340-2738 Fax: (612) 340-8856 Counsel for Amicus Curiae, The Florida Senate TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE ............................................................................ iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................2 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................2 A. THE STATE LEGISLATURE’S PLENARY POWER TO DIRECT THE MANNER BY WHICH ELECTORS ARE CHOSEN BARS ANY STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OR USE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION THAT MIGHT CIRCUMSCRIBE THAT POWER...........................................................2 1. This Court Used State Constitutional Law to Circumscribe the Statutory Discretion the Legislature Directed the Secretary Would Have 2. This Court Also Used State Constitutional Law to Drive Its General Statutory Construction 3. This Court’s Statutory Construction Also Deviated From the Legislature’s Directions in Other Ways B. THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS AN OVERRIDING INTEREST IN HAVING STATE COURTS INTERPRET ITS ELECTION CODES TO AVOID ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT CONGRESS MIGHT DEEM TO BE A CHANGE IN THE LAW. .....................................................................................12 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................16 i ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: Art. II, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution......................................................................................................2 FLORIDA CONSTITUTION: Art. III, § 2, Fla. Const.....................................................................................................................1 Art. III, § 3, Fla. Const.....................................................................................................................1 UNITED STATES CODE; 3 U. S. Code § 2........................................................................................................................2, 14 3 U. S. Code § 5..........................................................................................................1, 6, 9, 12, 13 3 U. S. Code § 15..........................................................................................................................12 FLORIDA STATUTES: §11.2421, F.S.................................................................................................................................10 §11.2422, F.S.................................................................................................................................10 §102.111, F.S.................................................................................................................5, 10, 11, 12 §102.112, F.S.......................................................................................................................5, 10, 11 §102.166, F.S...............................................................................................................................7, 9 §106.23, F.S.....................................................................................................................................8 LAWS OF FLORIDA: CASES: Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, No. 00-836, 531 U.S. --- (Dec.4, 2000).............1 Chiles v. Phelps, et al., 714 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1998).........................................................................2 McPherson v. Flynn, 397 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1981).....................................................................2 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892).........................................................................3, 4, 7 Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 2000 W.L. 1725434.................................4, 7, 9 Chappell v. Martinez, 536 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 1988)..................................................................10, 11 MISCELLANEOUS: iii 1989 Senate Journal, p. 819...........................................................................................................11 1989 House Journal, p. 1320.........................................................................................................11 Senate Rep. No. 395, 1st Sess. 43d Cong. (1874)...........................................................................3 LUCIAS WILMERDING, JR., THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 42-43 (Rutgers University Press 1958).....6 David Shapiro, Continuity and Change in Statutory Interpretation, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 921, 928 (1992).............................................................................................................................................13 iv CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE The undersigned certifies that the type size and style used in this brief is 12-point Times New Roman. v STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Amici Curiae, the FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and the FLORIDA SENATE (the “Legislature”), hereby adopt the Statement of the Case and Facts as reported in the per curiam decision of the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, No. 00-836, 531 U.S. --- (Dec.4, 2000). INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The Legislature is pleased to have this opportunity to advise the Supreme Court of Florida as to its views on the great issues now before this Court regarding the Presidential Election of 2000. As this Court knows, the Legislature was unable to advise the Court of its views before it rendered its prior decision because it was not until November 21, 2000, that the Legislature had a House Speaker and Senate President who could authorize the hiring of counsel. FLA . CONSTITUTION ART. III, §2, §3a. Because the parties before this Court were focused on different concerns, the prior briefing thus did not inform this Court regarding the important and distinctive legal interests the Legislature has both (a) in preserving its plenary power to direct the manner by which Presidential Electors are appointed, and (b) in satisfying beyond any doubt the safe harbor provisions of 3 U.S.C. §5 in order to assure Florida is represented in the Electoral College. These considerations were recognized as legally valid by the United States Supreme Court in its unanimous decision, and each played a pivotal role in its decision to vacate the prior decision of this Court. The Legislature respectfully submits that those important state interests require this Court to replace its vacated decision with a new opinion that confirms the original deadlines for certifications and county manual recounts set forth in the prior enactments of this Legislature. 1 ARGUMENT Both houses of the Florida Legislature normally do not unite at the bar of this Court unless it is to advocate an institutional interest of the Florida Legislature, usually based on separation of powers principles. For instance, in Chiles v. Phelps, et al., 714 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1998), the Florida Legislature argued separation of powers doctrine in a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch concerning the validity of a veto override, specifically citing this Court's earlier interpretation requiring the judiciary to "refrain from deciding a matter that is committed to a coordinate branch of government by the demonstrable test of the constitution." McPherson v. Flynn, 397 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1981). This case raises issues of parallel import – the proper role of the Florida Legislature in implementing the exclusive and demonstrable obligation assigned to it by Art. II, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution; and Title III, Sec. 2, U.S. Code. A. THE STATE LEGISLATURE’S PLENARY POWER TO DIRECT THE MANNER BY WHICH ELECTORS ARE CHOSEN BARS ANY STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OR USE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION THAT MIGHT CIRCUMSCRIBE THAT POWER. In its opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that in “the selection of Presidential electors, the legislature is not acting solely under the authority given it by the people of the State, but by virtue of a direct grant of authority made under Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution.”