WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed Florida's court-ordered recount of presidential election ballots, ruling that varying standards for counting made the effort unlawful. A 5-4 majority said there was no time to conduct a lawful recount.

Dissenters, decrying the outcome, said the ruling could undermine the nation's confidence in the courts.

In an extraordinary late-night decision Tuesday, the justices said the recount ordered last week by the Florida Supreme Court violated equal rights and there was not enough time to conduct a new count that would meet constitutional muster.

Without a recount, the certification of George W. Bush as the narrow winner over Al Gore of Florida's 25 electoral votes — and thus the presidency — would stand.

"Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the Dec. 12 date will be unconstitutional ... we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed," the court said, referring to a deadline for states to select presidential electors.

The ruling, five weeks to the day after the presidential election, said, "The recount process ... is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter."

Ruling in the majority were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Stevens' blistering dissent, joined by Ginsburg and Breyer, said, "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Breyer's dissent said "the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the court itself. ... We do risk a self-inflicted wound — a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation."

"The court was wrong to take this case," Breyer said. "It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume." Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg joined his opinion.

Gore lawyer Laurence Tribe told NBC-TV he disagreed with the decision, but "I think the courts' place in our lives is such that we all should rally around even if we disagree with the results."

The justices said the Florida court "ratified" uneven handling of recounts in various counties. The standards "might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another," the court said.

But the majority said that because Florida lawmakers intended in effect to complete the choosing of electors by Dec. 12 to shield them from challenge in Congress, an order allowing a new recount "could not be part of an appropriate" remedy.

The court issued its main ruling in an unsigned opinion. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas went further in a separate opinion, saying the Florida Supreme Court also violated the Constitution and federal law in ordering the recount.

O'Connor and Kennedy did not sign any separate opinion, but their votes were counted in the main opinion.

The court agreed 7-2, with Souter and Breyer joining the majority, that the differing standards for conducting the recount created an equal-protection problem. But the remedy, they said, was to conduct a new recount with proper standards.

Souter wrote, "I see no warrant for this court to assume that Florida could not possibly comply with this requirement before the date set for the meeting of electors, Fec. 18."

The main opinion said the case involved "a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."

In his separate opinion, Rehnquist said the court ultimately decided that under the Constitution, the Legislature had final say, not the courts. "This inquiry does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures," he wrote.

———

On the Net: For the Supreme Court web site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov