- The Washington Times - Monday, December 4, 2000

DAVID BOIES: Article II doesn't say that the legislature can only act through statute. However, that's a decision that the United States Supreme Court did not reach, because it held it did not want to reach the federal question until it had clarification.
Q: As a practical matter, you have a circuit judge here having a unanimous decision coming down from the U.S. Supreme Court, vacating the decision that was relied on, in part, in your case, there must be some reaction that he must have and that you must have that…
BOIES: I think that the reaction, particularly when the United States Supreme Court says that the Florida Supreme Court had the perfect right to do its statutory interpretation, and since the statutory interpretation is all that is relevant to the contest action, I think that, to the extent that the court needs to take that into account, it is further evidence that the Florida Supreme Court, as far as statutory interpretation was concerned, had the final authority.
So I think that reinforces that portion of the court's opinion that we relied on.
Q: … circuit court judge whether it's a full day that the state Supreme Court considers this. Aren't you really running out of time, though, to have these votes counted and win this thing?
BOIES: Obviously, we'd like to have the votes counted as soon as possible. On the other hand, I think a two-hour delay in the decision — and we don't even really know that there's going to be a two-hour delay. The court said that it was going to announce the decision between noon and 2 o'clock.
That's now been put on hold. The court has said it's going to announce what it's going to do at 2 o'clock. We'll find out then whether there will be any significant delay at all. So I don't think that you can read a great deal of delay into this issue.
If matters are delayed, there is no doubt that is to our disadvantage, because we want to get this done quickly. But there's no reason that this needs to delay things. We've always said, both sides, that this was ultimately going to go to the Florida Supreme Court. Now when we go back to the Florida Supreme Court, there's going to be this additional issue.
We think that issue is going to be relatively easily dealt with by the Florida Supreme Court, but as you know, I'm not going to predict.
Q: Ron, two questions. Number one, you're not merely one of the vice president's lawyers, you're one of his political advisers. So, politically, if you don't get a favorable court ruling either from this court or the Seminole case, can you survive? Can you keep fighting more than two or three days if you don't have some court rule in your favor? Then I've got a follow-up…
RON KLAIN, GORE CAMPAIGN ATTORNEY: Well, I think that we've made it clear, as David just said, that this case is going to wind up in the Florida Supreme Court. Obviously, we'd prefer to win in Judge Sauls' courtroom and be defending that on appeal.
But one way or another, this case is going to be resolved by the Florida Supreme Court. I think the American people understand that. And that's certainly where we're headed.
As for what the U.S. Supreme Court did today, I think that it made it very clear that it was neither agreeing or disagreeing with the Florida Supreme Court, but merely sending it back for more clarification.
And as a result, I don't think it's a win for either camp, I think it's a no-decision, and leaves this questions for another day. And that day is not some day off far in the future, but a day that's coming very soon, when this entire matter is brought to the Florida Supreme Court for its resolution.
Q: In retrospect, do you wish that you had not challenged the original filing date? Would have just let the certification take place and then you would have had a lot more time to take this contest procedure?
KLAIN: No. I think in retrospect, I continue to wish that Secretary of State Harris had not have acted in a way to cut off the tabulation of ballots in these three counties.
Let's remember why we're here. We're not here because we wanted to be in court. We're here because our efforts to get lawful votes tabulated were cut off by partisan efforts by the secretary of state to end those counts. And if, in fact, those counts had been done without her interference, they'd be over, they'd be in the tally, we'd all know who had won, and we could all go home.
We're here now only because there have been a series of efforts, many of which have been struck down by the Florida courts, to block the tabulation of these votes, and we need to continue to fight to get all the votes counted.
Q: It's my understanding that you're saying that you don't think that the Florida Supreme Court will act on the recount until Judge Sauls rules and someone appeals that ruling?
KLAIN: Well, I think the Florida Supreme Court will do what it's going to do. Given the tightness of the timetable, I think it's very likely that all these things would wind up completed before the Florida Supreme Court. But there could be separate proceedings, but we're talking about a very tight timetable that my guess would be done in one proceeding before that court.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide