The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election

BYU Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.262338
Todd J. Zywicki
{"title":"The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election","authors":"Todd J. Zywicki","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.262338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Presidential election of 2000 raised a number of unprecedented legal and political issues. Among those were issues raised by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which provides for office space and funding to be made available to the President-elect to effectuate his transition to power. The statute vests in the Administrator of the General Services Administration the power to determine the President-elect under the statute and thereby to release the transition offices and funds. Following the certification of Florida's electoral votes in November 2000, George W. Bush could claim a majority of certified and pledged electoral votes and thus requested the release of the transition resources. The Administrator refused this request and refused to release the transition resources until after the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore and Al Gore's subsequent concession. This essay examines the language, legislative history, political history, and policies of the Act and concludes that the Administrator acted improperly in refusing to recognize Bush as the President-elect following the certification of Florida's electoral votes for him. The essay examines the arguments advanced by the Administrator and concludes that they do not justify the vast power and discretion claimed by him under the Act. The essay then briefly considers possible amendments to the statute to prevent similar problems in the future. Most of the legal issues raised by the 2000 election are likely to be unique to that election and are unlikely to arise again in future elections. By contrast, the issues raised by the Presidential Transition Act are likely to occur again in the future, making necessary an understanding of the inaccuracies of the Administrator's acts in the 2000 election as well as the proper interpretation of the Act.","PeriodicalId":142428,"journal":{"name":"BYU Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BYU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.262338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The Presidential election of 2000 raised a number of unprecedented legal and political issues. Among those were issues raised by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which provides for office space and funding to be made available to the President-elect to effectuate his transition to power. The statute vests in the Administrator of the General Services Administration the power to determine the President-elect under the statute and thereby to release the transition offices and funds. Following the certification of Florida's electoral votes in November 2000, George W. Bush could claim a majority of certified and pledged electoral votes and thus requested the release of the transition resources. The Administrator refused this request and refused to release the transition resources until after the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore and Al Gore's subsequent concession. This essay examines the language, legislative history, political history, and policies of the Act and concludes that the Administrator acted improperly in refusing to recognize Bush as the President-elect following the certification of Florida's electoral votes for him. The essay examines the arguments advanced by the Administrator and concludes that they do not justify the vast power and discretion claimed by him under the Act. The essay then briefly considers possible amendments to the statute to prevent similar problems in the future. Most of the legal issues raised by the 2000 election are likely to be unique to that election and are unlikely to arise again in future elections. By contrast, the issues raised by the Presidential Transition Act are likely to occur again in the future, making necessary an understanding of the inaccuracies of the Administrator's acts in the 2000 election as well as the proper interpretation of the Act.
总统过渡法与2000年大选
2000年的总统选举引发了一系列前所未有的法律和政治问题。其中包括1963年《总统过渡法》提出的问题,该法案规定向当选总统提供办公场所和资金,以实现他的权力过渡。该法规赋予总务管理局局长根据该法规确定当选总统的权力,从而发放过渡办公室和资金。在2000年11月佛罗里达州的选举人票确认后,乔治·w·布什可以宣称获得大多数确认和承诺的选举人票,从而要求释放过渡资源。署长拒绝了这一请求,并拒绝在最高法院对布什诉戈尔案作出裁决以及阿尔·戈尔随后作出让步之前发放过渡资金。本文考察了该法案的语言、立法历史、政治历史和政策,并得出结论认为,在佛罗里达州的选举人票证明布什当选总统之后,行政长官拒绝承认布什为当选总统的行为是不当的。本文审查了行政官提出的论点,并得出结论认为,这些论点并不能证明他根据该法所要求的巨大权力和自由裁量权是正当的。然后,本文简要地考虑了可能的章程修正案,以防止类似的问题在未来。2000年选举中提出的大部分法律问题很可能是那次选举所独有的,不太可能在今后的选举中再次出现。相比之下,《总统过渡法》所提出的问题很可能在未来再次出现,因此有必要了解行政长官在2000年选举中的行为的不准确性以及对该法案的适当解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信