Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Gore to concede Whether Democrats or Republicans, islanders said they were glad the presidential election seems finally to be over.
Oahu residents happy
the long wait is overELECTION REACTION
Hawaii's 1960 recount citedBy Helen Altonn and Richard Borreca
Star-BulletinBill Wells, a Hawaiian Airlines pilot having breakfast at the Hungry Lion this morning, said, "They should have revoted the state of Florida right away and not spent all that money on lawyers. I'd like to see the price tag on all this litigation."
Tiffany Holt, 19, Hawaii Pacific University student, was happy because she voted for Bush. She noted that this year's election "is going to go down in history for sure."
Holt, a computer science student, said the election was discussed a little in her humanities class, and "people were going around saying, 'Bush or Gore, Bush or Gore?'"
Navy Lt. Mark W. Kwaiser said he planned to watch the events and commentary all day on television. He said he wasn't dissatisfied with Bush becoming president, but he did question whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision was political.
Lee Hein, a plumber, said he's glad a decision has finally been made. "I think the Florida court totally ignored the law when it gave an extension."
He said he thought both sides were "cherry-picking the laws they wanted to abide by."
Hein said if Florida had recounted all votes, that wouldn't have been a problem. But they just wanted to count the Democratic precincts. He said the Democratic justices on the Florida Supreme Court ignored the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
"(Al) Gore wanted not to be elected, but he wanted to be anointed by the new priesthood, the judges."
"I'm just glad it's over," said Tom Saito, 69. "I'm not unhappy."
In Washington, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka said he believed the Supreme Court's decision last night "establishes that Gov. Bush is president-elect, and I offer him my support as we prepare for the most striking manifestation of our democracy, the orderly transfer of power."
Akaka predicted that Bush will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, and pledged "to work with him to sustain prosperity and expand opportunity for all Americans."
The Hawaii Democrat said "the next president will enter office without a mandate or popular majority. Indeed, the only mandate we have comes from the American people to both the president and the Congress: Put aside partisan rancor and address the challenges facing our nation in a bipartisan manner."
Hawaii Republican Party Chairwoman Linda Lingle said she expects Bush to focus "on the issues, not the people or the party."
"He has a proven record of getting along with people. He doesn't need to change; he just needs to be himself and act in a bipartisan fashion," Lingle said.
"I'm glad that it has turned out this way and that it is over," she said. "And I'm also optimistic about the future, because there is not another person in America more experienced and qualified to deal in a bipartisan manner."
Acting Gov. Mazie Hirono, chairwoman of the Hawaii Gore for President Campaign, said she expects the vice president to ask the country to come together today behind the new president.
"One of the major challenges of the next president is that a divided country needs to be brought together," Hirono said.
"I also expect him to talk about the principle of counting every vote," she said.
"The one thing that is clear to me is that all the votes were not counted in Florida," she said.
The issue of how federal elections are conducted, Hirono said, will be a lasting debate because of the more than one month of legal wrangling coming from the Florida election returns.
Hirono said that in comparison to Florida, "Hawaii's election system looks pretty good."
She added, however, that she expects there will be a call to provide equality in vote counting across the country.
If Hawaii wants to change its provisions for recounting and/or election laws, "the provisions should be crystal clear," she said.
Lingle, however, says the Republicans can see lots of room for immediate improvement in Hawaii's elections, both in the laws and in the administration.
"There is no standard on how you judge on overvote in a Hawaii election. We have been asking about it for two years," she said. "Now these questions will be taken more seriously."
Star-Bulletin writer Gregg K. Kakesako contributed to this report
Hawaii drew a mention in a U.S. Supreme Court dissenting opinion on the presidential contest. Hawaii’s 1960 recount
cited in court opinionAssociated Press
In his opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the court majority for determining it would be unconstitutional for the state of Florida to select its presidential electors after the Dec. 12 date set by federal law.
Stevens wrote that the law merely provides rules for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors and does not bar a state from counting votes until a bona fide winner is determined.
He noted that in 1960, Hawaii conducted a recount that lasted almost the entire month of December before the state's three electoral votes were shifted from Richard M. Nixon to John F. Kennedy.
At the urging of Hawaii's Republican governor, William Quinn, Congress chose a Democratic slate that was not formally appointed until Jan. 4, 1961.
As vice president, Nixon -- who had conceded defeat weeks before -- affirmed the decision.
"Nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted," Stevens wrote. "As the majority notes, 'a desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.' "
Supreme Court web site:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov