Supreme Court Ends Recounts

* The U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of George W. Bush is a masterpiece of naked partisanship (Dec. 13). It purportedly added a sweeping new theory to our law of elections: The Constitution requires a uniform standard for casting and counting votes; uniformity trumps accuracy. Watch for the Supreme Court to back away from that legal theory. When it inevitably does, it will be confirming that the theory was a cheap makeshift, hastily fashioned to dispense power among political friends. Now is the time for election reform, including better technology to ensure accuracy in the way we cast and count votes.

THOMAS PRINDIVILLE

HIGGINS

Ventura

*

* History will record that, in the year 2000, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court diminished itself with a blatantly political exercise of power vaguely disguised as a legal opinion. The mob of five acted to put Bush in the White House as recklessly and inappropriately as would be the case if the president were to resolve the election with military might as the commander in chief. As a country, we should be proud that we are able to survive such appalling acts; but it is a sad day still.

ROGER B. COVEN

Irvine

*

* What’s the concern over the split decision? Is it about the obvious bias of the majority that denied another ill-defined recount of the Florida ballots? Or is it about the obvious bias of the minority (who don’t agree among themselves) that tried to defeat the will of the voters as expressed when the ballots were counted and recounted in accordance with the Florida law?

Let’s get over this. The election is over and Bush was elected under the law.

JAMES A. MARTENS

La Quinta

*

* In the Supreme Court oral arguments for the Bush vs. Gore case Justice Sandra Day O’Connor displayed an arrogance worthy of Marie Antoinette in her dismay over why voters couldn’t simply follow instructions, as if enfeebled elderly people or new voters unfamiliar with outmoded voting machines (I know them well; we use them here in my community) shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt. Her and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s cowardice in not signing the outrageous Catch-22 opinion, together with the votes of the hypocritical “states’ rights” and highly partisan Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, has tarnished the integrity of the court for years to come. In plain language, they have discounted the votes of all Americans. Shame on them.

CLIFTON SNIDER

Long Beach

*

* As an elderly voter I suggest that voter registration include an IQ test (in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Latin); an eye exam to check on ability to punch correct holes or--in electronic voting--ability to put finger on screen steadily without shaking; a hearing test to follow instructions as to which booth to enter; and a reading test (magnifying glass permitted). If everyone passes these elementary tests, it will be the end of chads and dimples.

JEANETTE LAMBERT

Laguna Woods

*

* The absurdity of the Supreme Court’s decision seems to me self-evident. To wit: How could it be that there is no practical remedy of a faulty election for the highest office in the land?

IVAN STRENSKI

Los Angeles

*

* Justices O’Connor, John Paul Stevens and Rehnquist will retire within the next four years. Clearly, the Supremes’ decision was chiefly concerned with who would choose their successors.

This may be the most egregiously activist ruling the Supreme Court will have made in the entire history of the U.S.

MICHAEL CHASE WALKER

Beverly Hills

*

* In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has anointed our next president. How ironic that the man who campaigned for more state rights and less federal government intervention ran to the federal courts each and every time he didn’t like a Florida state decision. With the Supreme Court tarnished for many years to come and the American people decisively divided, with millions believing this is now an illegitimate presidency, we have witnessed our first judicial coup. We will never respect Bush as our president.

ROBIN and LARRY BRICKER

Cypress

*

* Bush can now lay claim to the ugliest win in the history of American presidential politics; a questionably partisan Supreme Court handed it to him on a silver platter. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt as our new president. I will judge him by what he says and does and by what his surrogates and appointees say and do. I will hold off criticism until I have good reason to the contrary. I will view his intellectual work ethic in light of how he handles the job.

And finally, I will be patient, so long as he does not attempt to excuse ineptitude and lack of true leadership skills on the basis of insufficient transition time. Starting out with a negative mandate, he has a steep hill to climb, so if Emperor George has no clothes, the people will soon see it for themselves.

MICHAEL SADLER

Studio City

*

* Bush now has the dubious distinction of being the only president in American history elected by five Supreme Court justices. The irony, of course, is that these are the very same Republican-appointed justices who have spent their entire tenure on the bench propounding the idea that federal courts should respect the principle of states’ rights and practice judicial restraint.

LUCIA SU

Monterey Park

*

* Al Gore did not lose the election. He was the popular choice by 300,000 votes of the American people. It is America and the thousands of Floridians whose votes were not counted that are the losers in this election.

JANE BLOOM

Los Angeles

*

* And so, President-designate (hardly elected) Bush is appointed to his office by the partisans on the Supreme Court. But it is clear, the Democrats won. The majority of the popular vote makes it clear the American people do not want Bush’s agenda of massive tax cuts, Social Security “reforms” or his Scalia-type Supreme Court appointees. The majority of the people gave the Democrats a mandate to push the winning Gore agenda. The Democrats are now poised to retake the Congress in 2002. And after four years of a president whose right to hold the office will always be in doubt, the Democrats will likely retake the White House in 2004. Let the Bush supporters enjoy their moment in the Florida sun. It will not last long.

RICK ZIMMER

Anaheim

*

* In your Dec. 13 editorial (“End of the Struggle”), you claim that Gore believed “a full vote count in Florida . . . was the only fair way to decide this election.”

If Gore really felt that way, he or his attorneys should have sued for a full recount statewide. Instead, when attorney David Boies was asked by the Florida Supreme Court about this option, Boies said he would “accept” it but “we are not urging that.” Gore’s request for recounts in only four of 67 counties was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court for what it was, an attempt to manipulate the process and a violation of equal protection under law.

JOEL WEST

Oceanside

*

* I am so disappointed in our system! It matters not to me who the winner is; personally, I wasn’t excited about any of the candidates. I have always had doubts if my vote counted, but I did go out of my way to vote, because I feel I am not entitled to complain if I don’t vote. But now it is clear--our votes don’t count. How can the courts decide who our president is? Why don’t we just let them decide every election year? I wanted to know my vote counted. Now it is painfully clear it does not. I will continue to complain about issues I don’t agree with, but I will never vote again.

DAWN WELLMAN

Palm Springs

*

* To those voters now denouncing the presidential election results, a lesson in Proper Ballot Voting 101 seems in order.

It’s over--hail to our new chief!

WALLACE WILLIS

San Gabriel

*

* I am glad that Gore went down fighting. This is quite possibly the first time in his political career that he has done what his campaign ads claimed, i.e. “fought for me.” You see, I am one of the Nader supporters who threw away my vote and punched the chads for Gore in hopes of preventing the election of the (somewhat) greater of two evils. Gore’s fight was a fight to make my vote count too.

CYNTHIA HART

Culver City

*

* Once again, the underinformed or disingenuous write in an attempt to claim a rightful victory based solely on the results of the nationwide popular vote. The Constitution provides for and clearly outlines the electoral college process. The nationwide popular vote is, in this election and every other presidential election in U.S. history, entirely meaningless. A candidate with a majority of electoral votes while losing the popular vote has no obligation whatsoever to do anything other than assume his constitutionally granted position. The smart victor will, of course, recognize the divided nature of the nation implicit in such an unusual situation and govern to the center.

I encourage people feeling this system is grossly unfair to actively involve themselves in the processes required to introduce a constitutional amendment. As for now, however, we play by the rules and laws currently in place.

CHRIS FREELAND

Oak Park

*

* After reading your mean-spirited Dec. 13 editorial, “The End of the Struggle,” once again The Times has shown that it is not a paper for all but just for the Democratic Party. A very sad commentary.

ROSLYN KRAUSE

West Hollywood

*

* As a recently naturalized citizen, I was very proud to cast a vote in my first American presidential election. Whom I voted for is irrelevant right now. However, my disappointment is, as expressed at the end of your editorial, that the loser in the election is one’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law.

MICHAEL LEVINRAD

Santa Monica

*

* After hours of watching the election comedy on TV, I am convinced that there are far too many gray-haired old men who compose our legislative, judicial and legal professions that are creating, enforcing and interpreting the laws. Most of them won’t be living long enough to endure their product. In my opinion there is an abundant supply of men and women in the 30- to 55-year age group who have the education and the ability to step in and create the kind of country they want to live in.

As a 77-year-old, I urge the old guys that it is time for them to step aside, go fishing or play golf or whatever.

PAUL HUMMEL

Newport Beach