http://www.oyez.org/tags/rehnquist_ballot_access_and_voting/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.</p> <p>Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?</p> 00-949_20001211-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/argument/ Theodore B. Olson supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 00-949_20001211-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/argument/ Joseph P. Klock Jr. supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 00-949_20001211-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/argument/ David Boies supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 00-949_20001211-argument-part04 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/argument/ Theodore B. Olson supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The 2000 presidential election remained in limbo with the outcome dependent on the winner of the popular vote in Florida. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush held a slim lead in the tally. Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore challenged the decision of Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, to certify the results of the presidential election on November 14, the deadline provided by Florida's election law. Gore also challenged Harris's decision to ignore the outcome of manual recounts his campaign had requested in four Florida counties, recounts available under another provision of Florida's election code. The Florida Supreme Court heard Gore's challenges and held that Harris could not certify the outcome until November 26. The Florida Supreme Court also held that Harris must include the results of manual recounts in the certified results. Governor Bush intervened. Harris and Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p> <p>Do post-election court decisions that limit legislators' or executive officials' discretion to certify election results violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution or 3 USC Section 5? Did the Florida Supreme Court's decision change the manner in which Florida's electoral votes were chosen, thereby violating Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which confers plenary power in federal election matters on state legislatures?</p> 00-836_20001201-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_836/argument/ Theodore B. Olson supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 00-836_20001201-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_836/argument/ Joseph P. Klock Jr. supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 00-836_20001201-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_836/argument/ Paul F. Hancock supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 00-836_20001201-argument-part04 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_836/argument/ Laurence H. Tribe supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 00-836_20001201-argument-part05 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_836/argument/ Theodore B. Olson supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In the wake of U.S Term Limits v. Thornton, Missouri voters adopted an amendment to Article VIII of their State Constitution, which "instructs" each Member of Missouri's congressional delegation "to use all of his or her delegated powers to pass the Congressional Term Limits Amendment" set forth in section 16 of the Article. The Article also directs the Missouri Secretary of State to determine whether a statement reflecting a candidate's position on term limits should be placed by his or her name on the general election ballot. Don Gralike, a non-incumbent House of Representatives candidate, brought suit to enjoin the Secretary from implementing the Article. The District Court, granting Gralike summary judgment, found that Article VIII infringed upon the Qualifications Clauses of Article I of the Federal Constitution by creating additional qualifications for Congress and that the Article burdened a candidate's First Amendment right to speak freely on the issue of term limits. The Court of Appeals affirmed.</p> <p>Is Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution, as amended in 1996 to prompt the adoption of a "Congressional Term Limits Amendment" to the Federal Constitution, consistent with the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, Section 4, Clause 1)?</p> 99-929_20001106-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_929/argument/ Mr. James R. Mcadams supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 99-929_20001106-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_929/argument/ Mr. Jonathan S. Franklin supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 99-929_20001106-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_929/argument/ Ms. Barbara D. Underwood supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 99-929_20001106-argument-part04 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_929/argument/ Mr. James R. Mcadams supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." 2 USC sections 1 and 7 provide that the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an even-numbered year is established as the date for federal congressional and presidential elections. In 1975, Louisiana adopted an "open primary," which occurs before the uniform federal election day and in which all candidates appear on the ballot and all voters may vote. If a candidate for a given office receives a majority at the open primary, that candidate is elected and no further act is done on federal election day to fill that office. Louisiana voters challenged the open primary is a violation of federal law. Reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that Louisiana's system squarely "conflicts with the federal statutes that establish a uniform federal election day."</p> <p>Does Louisiana's open primary violate the federal statutes that establish a uniform federal election day?</p> 96-670_19971006-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_670/argument/ Richard I. Ieyoub supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 96-670_19971006-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_670/argument/ M. Miller Baker supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 96-670_19971006-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_670/argument/ Richard I. Ieyoub supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Following the 2000 Census, the Democratic-controlled Georgia legislature passed a redistricting plan that was backed by many black leaders because it would have spread black voters and influence across several districts rather than concentrating them in a select few. Georgia's Republican governor objected to the plan because he said it violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which discourages the dilution of minority voting strength. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the legislature's plan.</p> <p>Did the redistricting plan violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by spreading minority voters across several districts rather than concentrating them in a few heavily minority ones?</p> 02-182_20030429-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_182/argument/ David F. Walbert supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-182_20030429-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_182/argument/ Malcolm L. Stewart supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-182_20030429-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_182/argument/ E. Marshall Braden supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-182_20030429-argument-part04 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_182/argument/ David F. Walbert supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community."</p> <p>Is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?</p> 94-631_19950419-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_631/argument/ David F. Walbert supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 94-631_19950419-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_631/argument/ Drew S. Days III supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 94-631_19950419-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_631/argument/ A. Lee Parks supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Under Minnesota law, candidates for political office are prohibited from appearing on more than one party's ballot. When the Twin Cities Area New Party, a chapter of the national New Party, nominated someone for state representative who was already another political party's candidate, Minnesota election officials declined its petition. When the New Party challenged Minnesota's election laws the District Court upheld their constitutionality, but was reversed by the state's Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.</p> <p>Did Minnesota's anti-fusion laws, banning a candidate from appearing on more than one party's ballot, violate the association rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 95-1608_19961204-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1608/argument/ Richard S. Slowes supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 95-1608_19961204-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1608/argument/ Laurence H. Tribe supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist