This interview is from a continuing series of transcript excerpts from the collection of the Samuel Proctor Oral History Program at the University of Florida.
Julian Pleasants [P] interviewed Judge Charles Burton [B] on April 5, 2001. Burton recounts his firsthand experience serving on the Palm Beach County canvassing board during the disputed 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, describing the manual recounts, legal battles, and extraordinary political pressures that surrounded Florida’s vote. Reflecting on the controversy months later, he argues that election officials at every level should have remained nonpartisan, criticizes both political parties for injecting politics into the recount process, and calls for clearer statewide standards, improved voting technology, and greater voter education to restore confidence in elections.
Transcript edited for length and clarity by Beth Grobman; a full transcript of this interview is available at tinyurl.com/iguana2515.
P: How did you come to be a member of the Palm Beach County canvassing board?
B: I was appointed to the bench in May of 2000 by Governor Jeb Bush. Sometime around August, I received a call from our chief judge’s office asking whether I would serve on the canvassing board, which oversees elections. I was told the function of a canvassing board was mostly supervisory, making sure the voting equipment was working properly. I had no idea then what the following November would bring.
P: What were your responsibilities on Election Day?
B: Election Day was like any other day for me until about 4 p.m. We went to the Supervisor of Elections office, reviewed absentee ballots that had to be examined, checked signatures when necessary, and made sure the voting equipment was functioning properly. After the polls closed, we ran the ballots through the counting machines, verified there were no errors, signed the paperwork, and expected to go home. That is what normally happens.
P: When did you realize this was going to be an extraordinary event?
B: It is funny because I had voted myself by absentee ballot the Friday before. When I got to the office that afternoon someone showed me the butterfly ballot and said, “Go vote for Gore. So I put in a ballot and punched out Gore and, what is the problem?” Well, people had been complaining they accidentally voted for Buchanan.
At first I probably did not pay much attention to it. As the evening went on, we realized it was a close election, but honestly, Gore was ahead in Palm Beach County. He had won Palm Beach County by over 100,000 votes, so I really was not thinking anything unusual was happening here.
Around 3:30 a.m. I went home, thinking Gore had carried Florida. I was awakened later that morning and told to come back because Bush had been declared the winner, then the result changed again, and now there was going to be a recount.
P: Describe how you organized the manual recount.
B: Under Florida law, if the margin is one-half of one percent, a candidate can request a manual recount. The machines separate ballots they cannot read into a “reject” pile. Those rejected ballots are examined by hand to determine whether the intent of the voter can be determined.
Palm Beach County was divided into precincts. Three precincts were selected by the Democratic Party, three by the Republican Party, and three by the canvassing board. We began counting those ballots while the county continued rerunning all ballots through the machines.
P: How accurate is a hand recount?
B: One thing the media demonstrated very clearly is that hand recounts are not very accurate. Different people can look at the same ballot and honestly disagree about whether a vote should count. If you hand the same stack of punch-card ballots to two people, you may not get the same result. The process is simply too subjective to produce absolute certainty.
P: Why did Theresa LePore choose the butterfly ballot? Did you have any input?
B: It was entirely her decision. Florida law gives the supervisor of elections responsibility for ballot design. The Division of Elections specifies what information must appear on the ballot, but the design itself is left to each county supervisor. It was not a canvassing-board function.
Theresa’s primary concern was complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because there were so many presidential candidates, the print would have been extremely small had everything appeared on one page. She believed splitting it across two pages would make the ballot easier to read. Unfortunately, what seemed like a good-faith effort created tremendous controversy.
P: How accurate are punch-card voting machines?
B: I certainly do not claim any expertise beyond what I learned during this election, but I do know this: technology alone is not the answer. My view is that voter education is every bit as important. Until people understand how to vote correctly, whether with punch cards or newer technology, we are always going to have problems.
P: During the recount there were conflicting opinions from the Division of Elections, the attorney general, and your own attorney. How did you deal with that?
B: We were trying to be nonpartisan. I was a judge sitting there trying to follow the law, and every day the legal advice seemed to change. The Division of Elections was saying one thing, the attorney general another, and our own attorney had concerns about both positions. Rather than rush into a decision, we asked the Division of Elections and the attorney general to give us guidance so we could proceed under the law.
P: At one point the canvassing board voted two to one to proceed with the recount, and you dissented.
B: I felt the motion was premature. My concern was not whether votes should be counted. My concern was that we should first know what the law required. We were receiving conflicting legal opinions, and I believed we should resolve those questions before moving forward.
P: Did you think Secretary of State Katherine Harris and Attorney General Bob Butterworth acted objectively?
B: No. I believed both offices were acting in partisan ways. That was frustrating because the canvassing board was trying to do its job under tremendous public scrutiny while political officials were sending conflicting signals. Our responsibility was simply to conduct the recount according to Florida law.
P: Did you think Secretary Harris should have recused herself?
B: Looking back, she probably should have, and I think the attorney general should have as well. When public officials have such visible political affiliations, it becomes much harder for the public to believe that election decisions are being made impartially.
P: The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue. What was your reaction?
B: I believed the court sincerely wanted every legal vote counted. At the same time, the rules seemed to change as the process unfolded. One county was applying one standard, another county a different one. That troubled me because elections should be administered consistently.
P: Do you think the Gore campaign made a mistake by requesting recounts in only selected counties?
B: I do. If you are going to have a recount in a statewide election, it ought to be statewide. Otherwise, it creates the appearance that recounts are being requested only where one side believes it may gain votes. Whether or not that was the intent, appearances matter in elections.
P: So you believe statewide standards are essential?
B: Absolutely. One of the biggest lessons from this election is that voters throughout the state deserve to be treated under the same rules. If identical ballots are judged differently depending on the county, people naturally begin to question whether the system is fair.
P: How did the canvassing board decide what constituted a vote?
B: We tried to be as consistent as possible. Earlier opinions had suggested a “one-corner” standard for punch-card ballots, and after consulting with the county attorney we continued applying that standard. We were not trying to invent new rules. We were trying to apply one rule consistently to every ballot that came before us.
P: Did the board work well together despite political differences?
B: Yes. We disagreed at times, but everyone understood that our responsibility was to administer the election fairly. We tried very hard to leave politics outside the room. As the recount continued, I think we developed mutual respect because everyone recognized how important it was for the public to have confidence in what we were doing.
P: What was it like working under such extraordinary pressure?
B: There were lawyers everywhere, observers challenging ballots, television cameras, and intense public attention. After a while you almost became numb to it. Our focus had to remain on the ballots in front of us. If we allowed ourselves to become distracted by the politics surrounding the recount, we could not do the job we had been asked to do.
P: What lessons have we as a country learned from this election?
B: I certainly hope we have learned that when people tell you to get out and vote, your vote really does count. This election proved that. What also struck me was how many eligible people never voted at all. That is a sad commentary. In an election this close, there were still millions of people who chose not to participate.
P: So improving elections is about more than new voting machines?
B: Absolutely. Better equipment is important, but people also need to understand how to vote. We need better voter education. We need people to register, people to participate, and people to have confidence that their vote will count.
Here in Palm Beach County there were problems, but people came out in tremendous numbers because they believed their vote mattered. People need to stay involved.
P: How has this election changed Palm Beach County?
B: Other than being the butt of jokes around the country, I think Palm Beach County has clearly found itself under a microscope. Looking back, I think what happened here was less about Palm Beach County than about what can happen anywhere. Every state ought to look at what happened and ask what improvements can be made. I hope people learn from it instead of simply assigning blame.
P: How has the experience changed your own life?
B: Other than people recognizing me on the street, I think it reinforced my belief that public officials have to do their jobs without regard to politics. When you accept a responsibility like serving on a canvassing board, you have to follow the law as best you can and let the consequences fall where they may.
P: Theresa LePore became the focus of enormous criticism. Looking back, how do you feel about that?
B: I think Theresa has had a rough time. She was trying to make the ballot easier to read, particularly for older voters and people with disabilities. She clearly made a mistake, and she has admitted that, but I also think she was unfairly demonized. People make mistakes. That should not erase a lifetime of public service.
P: What lessons have we as a country learned from this election?
B: I certainly hope we have learned that when people tell you to get out and vote, your vote really does count. This election proved that.
What also struck me was how many eligible people never voted at all. That is a sad commentary. In an election this close, there were still millions of people who chose not to participate.
We need better voter education. We need people to register, people to participate, and people to have confidence that their vote will count. Democracy depends on it.