High Court Usually Avoids Vote Disputes

Nov. 22 -- More than two weeks after Election Day, the legal wrangling for votes between the leading presidential candidates has finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawyers for Texas Gov. George W. Bush today appealed to the high court, asking the justices for a quick review of Tuesday’s Florida Supreme Court ruling that allowed manual recounts to be included in the state’s final vote tally. The Republican team also asked the court to bypass a federal appeals court and review a federal judge’s decision last week not to block the recount.

There’s no guarantee the court will accept the case, but if it does, the justices will face an array of unprecedented questions critical to the outcome of the presidential election.

Bush’s first obstacle is getting the court to hear arguments in the case. Four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to grant oral arguments. At issue is whether the justices will identify a pertinent question in the appeals pertaining to federal law or the Constitution.

“It is very unlikely the U.S. Supreme Court would getinvolved,” Stanford University constitutional law professorKathleen Sullivan said. “Number one, the issues are issues ofstate law. The law of chad is a state law issue, not a federal one.”

Looking for Precedent

But ABCNEWS legal consultant Jan Baran says the justices might take the case even if they don’t think they should get involved.

“The court has historically been very reluctant to get involved in election disputes,” he said. “But if there were ever extenuating circumstances this would be it. They might take the case just for purposes of deciding they shouldn’t get involved.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down at least two significant rulings on election law in the last few decades. In a 1970 case from Indiana, the justices ruled that even if the state conducted a recount in a tight U.S. race, members of the Senate had the power to make an “unconditional and final judgment” on whom to seat as a member.