Newspapers Weigh In

Excerpts from editorials in U.S. newspapers Sunday on the latest developments in the contested presidential race:

San Jose Mercury News

We side with the U.S. court’s four-judge minority, who would have counted now and ruled later. And we disagree with Florida Chief Justice Charles T. Wells that counting opens the door to constitutional crisis.

Seattle Times

The Florida Supreme Court had two jobs to do--interpret the election law and provide effective relief. It did the first job well and the second so miserably it is hard to imagine a worse result.

. . . what the nation wanted was finality in Gore v. Bush. Here the majority bungled the job.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

No, we are not yet condemned to a full-blown constitutional crisis. The U.S. Supreme Court, which at least temporarily halted hand-counting of ballots Saturday, may in the end reverse its counterpart in Florida. If so, the big top comes down, the costumes and animals are packed into rail cars and the circus heads out of town, leaving George W. Bush as our next president.

But if after oral arguments scheduled for Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Florida decision, the unthinkable becomes inevitable. In that case, it becomes hard to construct a scenario in which the identity of our next president is established by some means other than a bitter and bloody political fight.

New York Times

We regret the decision by five of the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court yesterday to suspend the vote recount in Florida until it has time to consider an appeal from the Bush camp. . . . The federal courts should not have halted the counting in Florida. Continuing that activity posed no irreparable harm to either candidate, whereas interrupting it could cause the state to miss its [Tuesday] deadline for naming a slate of electors based on the true vote rather than legislative fiat. . . .

Now, if the count is allowed to go forward, the nation will get to see how many votes should properly be recorded statewide for both men. After so much confusion, all that is required to reach that resolution is patience from the public, a wise decision from the United States Supreme Court and responsible behavior from the political players. . . .

Washington Post

The U.S. court is the ultimate authority, and we continue to hope that it can bring clarity and legitimacy to a process sorely in need of both. But the justices, in statements accompanying yesterday’s order, seemed angrily divided. That raises the worrying prospect of the court allowing itself to be seen as one more partisan player in this unprecedented struggle instead of as an impartial and judicious referee that can rise above it. . . .

If the count never resumes, many Democrats will feel they have been robbed. If Mr. Gore wins on the basis of this latest recount, many Republicans will feel similarly swindled. One challenge for the court is to find a way to minimize those feelings--to fashion an outcome that leaves as many of the loser’s supporters as possible feeling as though they lost fair and square.

Source: Associated Press