WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday set aside a state high court ruling that allowed selective manual recounts in Florida's contested presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush and sent the case back "for further proceedings."
Acting with unusual haste, the high court invited Florida's top court to clarify its reasons for its ruling that extended the deadline for hand-counted ballots in some Democratic-leaning counties in the state.
The nation's high court acted as a state judge in Florida was preparing to rule on a more tangible issue — whether to grant Gore's motion to overturn Bush's certified 537-vote victory in the state that stands to pick the next president. Within minutes, Judge N. Sanders Sauls relayed word he would delay his own ruling while he attempts to determine whether the high court's opinion has any impact on the case before him.
The state case is "on hold," Terre Cass, a circuit court spokeswoman, told reporters in Tallahassee, Fla.
Craig Waters, a spokesman for the state Supreme Court, said, "obviously this is a matter now pending before this court again, and for that reason, the court cannot comment on any of the issues."
Last Friday, the Florida Supreme Court dealt Gore's lawyers a defeat, refusing to order an immediate hand recount of thousands of disputed ballots. The high court also separately refused to order a new election in Palm Beach County, rejecting a plea from Gore voters who contested the design of the county's "butterfly ballot" as confusing.
The practical impact of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was unclear in Florida, where Bush was certified the winner by 537 votes 10 days ago and where Gore has been waging a battle ever since to overturn that certification.
Gore attorney Laurence Tribe said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling simply preserves the status quo, though time is running short for the Democrat.
"Although it is a slowdown, it is not critical if the ultimate decision is to start to count," Tribe said.
Bush lawyer Fred H. Bartlit said he had not yet seen the ruling but was familiar with it. "Apparently what they said as near as we can make out is that they can't figure out what the Florida Supreme Court based its decision on, whether constitutional grounds or Florida state laws."
The Supreme Court, in its unsigned, unanimous opinion, said: "There is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present" in the contested election.
The seven-page opinion invited Florida's top court to clarify its reasons for extending the deadline for hand-counted ballots. That, in turn, would allow the justices to decide at a later date whether Bush's appeal raised federal issues upon which they could rule more definitively.
The action was not a ruling for Bush on the merits of his appeal. But by setting aside the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, it could place in doubt the gains Gore made through the hand recount in the days after Nov. 14. That was the original deadline for certification set by Secretary of State Katherine Harris before the state Supreme Court ordered her to accept updated results for several more days.
The court said it was not certain to what extent the Florida court saw the state constitution as limiting state lawmakers' authority to choose presidential electors, or how much consideration it gave to an 1887 federal law that makes states' choice of presidential electors binding on Congress as long as disputes were resolved under laws enacted before the election.
"The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion," the justices said.
The court held a dramatic argument session Friday after agreeing a week earlier to hear Bush's appeal of the Florida court ruling, which extended the deadline for reporting recount results from Nov. 14 to Nov. 26.
The justices had appeared deeply divided over whether there were grounds to overrule the state court.
Bush's lawyer, Theodore Olson, argued that the Florida Supreme Court's decision to allowed the extended recount "overturned the carefully enacted plan" by state legislators for resolving election disputes.
He contended the state court violated the Constitution and an 1887 federal law that makes states' choice of presidential electors binding on Congress as long as disputes were resolved under laws enacted before the election.