Local Democrats cast doubts on vote, court

By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff, 12/11/2000

lthough US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained that Saturday's 5-4 decision to halt the counting of disputed ballots in Florida was meant to avoid ''casting a cloud'' on the legitimacy of the next president, Democrats in Massachusetts were busy this weekend forecasting a long spell of cloudy weather.

Democratic politicians said they received dozens of calls from people outraged with the Supreme Court decision to stop the hand recount of 45,000 ballots.

''Just walking around the mall this afternoon, several people have grabbed me and said, `Can you believe this is happening?''' said Philip W. Johnston, chairman of the state's Democratic Party, who lost a congressional seat to William D. Delahunt in 1996 after a hand recount.

The weekend, then, was a cheerless one for the Bay State's champions of Vice President Al Gore, perhaps the lowest low thus far of ''the most extraordinary rollercoaster ride,'' as Steven Grossman, candidate for governor in 2002, called the contested presidential election.

Although the Supreme Court won't hear arguments until today, Scalia also wrote that ''a majority of the court ... believes that the petitioner [Bush] has a substantial probability of success.''

The Democratic pols interviewed yesterday said the high court's surprise action - with a bloc of five conservative justices constituting the majority - is being viewed as ''shockingly partisan,'' in Johnston's words.

Several turned around Scalia's cloud analogy. George W. Bush's presidency would never escape a ''cloud of doubt'' if certain votes are never counted, said Democratic political strategist Mary Anne Marsh.

''This presidency is being stolen, and it seems to me that a stolen presidency is a doomed one,'' said Secretary of State William G. Galvin, who added that the Supreme Court is overstepping its authority in weighing in on state election law. ''How do I tell people in Massachusetts that their vote counts, when [the court] says this? There's no way I can.''

Galvin said those he has spoken to cannot understand why the court did not let vote-counting go on during the weekend - with tomorrow's electoral college deadline looming - and then address the legality of the ballots.

''What are they afraid of?'' Galvin asked, referring to the five-justice majority. ''We know what they're afraid of.''

Democrats also expressed concern about the future legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.

''It troubles me that the Supreme Court has had a history, and a proud one, of protecting people's right to vote,'' Marsh said. ''My concern is that they're turning their backs on that history. Where will we turn next time rights are violated?''

At least one prominent Democrat, however, said he believes the recount may yet go forward, and Gore may yet win the presidency.

''As one of those who have strongly urged the vice president to stay the course, I'm hoping the Supreme Court does the right thing'' today, Grossman said. ''I'm an inveterate optimist.''