F HE HAD to rule that the US Constitution did not permit a revote, Florida Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga said, it would be ''the hardest decision I ever make.'' He made it. And that should hearten those disheartened by the ugly partisan spectacle that drags on two weeks after the country voted for president and failed to elect anyone.
During this standoff between George W. Bush and Al Gore, advocates on both sides argue passionately to stretch or constrict the law to accommodate naked politics. As Labarga's ruling shows, the law - and partisanship - has its limits.
What a relief. With limits, there is finality. With limits, there is dignity, a condition sorely lacking amongst the bickering, talking heads on both sides of this power struggle.
''The right to vote is precious to me,'' said Labarga on Friday. Still, the Palm Beach County judge, who immigrated from Cuba as a child, did not let emotion get in the way of law. He ruled yesterday that he did not have the authority to order the new election sought by residents who say they were confused by the county's so-called butterfly ballot. Only lawmakers could do that.
Labarga put it very concisely: ''The relief sought by the plantiffs is not permitted by law.''
Last week another Florida judge also proved that judges can rise above partisan politics. On Friday, Tallahassee Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Secretary of State Katherine Harris used her discretion properly when she refused to accept late filed returns. ''The secretary has exercised her reasoned judgment to determine what relevant factors and criteria should be considered, applied them to the facts and circumstances pertinent to the individual counties involved, and made her decision. My order requires nothing more,'' proclaimed Lewis in a one-paragraph dismissal of the Gore campaign's argument that Harris did not properly use her discretion.
Harris, a Republican politician, made a political decision when she chose to exercise her discretion very narrowly. Lewis, a Democratic jurist, did not, when he upheld the secretary of state's exercise of discretion.
It underscores why the switch in focus from Florida's political corridors to its courts should be reassuring. These past two weeks may rightly shake our confidence in politics. But they shouldn't shake our confidence in the legal process.
For sure, the politicians look foolish, on both sides, from the top down. Bush ambles around his ranch, playing with his dog and/or his running mate. Gore pushes the silliness envelope even more, with scripted antics like his weekend jog with Tipper.
Their surrogates, meanwhile, snarl at one another on television, never acknowledging what the average voter easily understands to be true.
In their frantic push to achieve victory, the Democrats are trying to overtake Bush by harvesting as many votes as possible and changing the ballot counting rules in the middle of the count to do it. In their desperate push to hang onto victory, the Republicans are challenging ballots they know were meant to be cast for Gore.
So far, the bright spots in this dark partisan struggle occurred in two Florida courtrooms. There, we saw a willingness to step beyond the partisan fray, beyond the charges of chad-eating and the breakout of hostilities when a ballot for one candidate is mistakenly placed in the pile for the other.
Now we look to the Florida Supreme Court and its seven justices to settle key issues in the unresolved presidential election. Six were appointed by a Democratic governor and one was jointly appointed by a Democrat and a Republican. It will be up to them to get beyond partisan politics and render an appropriate ruling about including hand-counted ballots in the final tally.
Will the court say the rights of individual voters are too great in this case to overlook and extend the deadline for certifying votes? Or, will the court affirm the state's election process, messy and imprecise as it is? That would leave it up to Florida lawmakers to change the process to make it neater and more precise in the future.
Democrats can argue there is courage in extending the deadline; Republicans can argue there is courage in sticking with it. But there is finality - and a definite Bush presidency - in only one.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
