The Fine Print

How much power does Gov. Rick Scott really have?

(UPDATE: Florida's voter registration deadline was extended to Oct 18.)

In a federal courtroom on Wednesday, a judge will hear arguments on whether or not the state's voter registration deadline should be extended beyond 5 p.m. due to Hurricane Matthew.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker has already pushed back the Oct. 11 deadline by a day in order to hold the hearing after the Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit on Sunday evening. In his ruling granting the one-day extension, Walker said that the deadline amounts to a "severe burden on the right to vote" and he suggested it was unconstitutional.

The party filed the lawsuit after Gov. Rick Scott turned down requests including an informal suggestion from the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton  to extend the deadline. Scott, who is supporting GOP nominee Donald Trump, said the reason he was doing it was that people had already had enough time to register.

It's not clear how hard the governor's office plans to fight to keep the deadline. A spokeswoman for Scott put out a statement on Tuesday that said that the state will accept the judge's decision _ and that the governor would even seek to change the law during the upcoming 2017 session.

But one question that is floating out there - and one that may not be totally resolved after the court hearing - is just how much power does Florida's governor have during emergencies?

Walker in his ruling suggested - but not definitely - that Scott lacked the authority to extend the voting deadline.

In his order Walker wrote that while Secretary of State Ken Detzner was an appropriate person for Democrats to sue since he was the chief election official, he didn't think that applied to the governor. He noted that while Scott has "general emergency powers" those powers may not include any power to alter the voting registration deadline. Those powers generally allow the governor to suspend laws if there is a declared emergency.

Walker pointed out, however, that there is a carve out in existing Florida law that allows the governor to delay or suspend an election due to an emergency. The judge then notes that section of law says nothing about changing the voter registration deadline.

That led Walker to conclude it is "wholly irrational in this instance for Florida to refuse the extend the voter registration deadline when the state already allows the governor to suspend or move the election date."

This was an interesting point brought up by Walker since the lawsuit did not even delve into Scott's emergency power. Instead the lawsuit filed by the party suggested that Scott's decision to keep the deadline amid the disruption, power outages and evacuations that occurred due to Matthew amounted to a violation of federal law and disenfranchisement of voters. Scott himself did not cite a lack of authority as a reason for his decision.

Now the elections emergency law cited by Walker has been used before.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush used it to alter the election in 10 counties following Hurricane Charley in 2004. This move allowed county officials to delay the start of early voting.

It's important to note here that Bush's order came on Aug. 19 - or less than 2 weeks before that year's primary - so it's not completely comparable. But another part of his order gave the secretary of state's office the power to "modify, suspend, amend" any deadlines in the entire election code that could not be complied with due to the emergency caused by the hurricane.

But the truth is that several Florida governors have used their emergency powers in broad ways _ and in most instances they have never been challenged.

And while I'm sure it could be argued that the actions of past governors do not create any legal precedence, this shows that Scott could have had a justification to take action if he wanted.

Former Gov. Charlie Crist, for example, used his emergency powers in 2008 to extend early voting hours (a move that privately infuriated some Republicans, but who opted against suing him). Crist even in the final days of his governorship ordered that the state begin to offer extended jobless benefits to Floridians that had been approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Scott himself back in February 2015 _ without the justification of an emergency _ issued an executive order to suspend an 11th grade standardized test that was about to be given to high school juniors that spring. Scott contended that he could do under his "supreme executive power" but then noted that the Legislature would have a chance to repeal the law that authorized the test later that year.

Were these moves legal? That's hard to tell since the actions were never challenged in court.

But what it shows is that there have been instances in the past where Florida's most recent governors have taken action. And not once did they suggest that they lacked the authority to do so.

Rick Scott's next job

Shortly before prime-time on Wednesday night, Florida Gov. Rick Scott got a few moments on Fox News to deliver the announcement that he was becoming the national chairman of Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC dedicated to helping GOP nominee Donald Trump become president.

Amid the other activities of the convention _ including the address of President Barack Obama _ it got overshadowed.

But in many ways it's a big signal about the political ambitions and possible future of Scott.

First off Scott's work for the group _ which includes political director Ken McKay (who worked on Scott's 2010 campaign and was political director for the Republican Governors Association) _ will give him a spot to approach donors and network with top Republicans across the nation. It may also give him an opportunity to land more national media coverage in the weeks to come.

Scott told Fox News that the group was well behind the fundraising efforts of the groups supporting Clinton, but said that millions had already pledged to the group. He vowed that "we’re going to do everything we can to set the record straight and make sure everybody knows the difference between Donald trump and Hillary Clinton."

The conventional wisdom has been among many that Scott is destined to run for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Sen. Bill Nelson. Nelson's seat comes up in 2018 and it could be considered vulnerable in a non-presidential election year, especially since the Democratic politician has solidly aligned himself with Obama and Hillary Clinton. Despite backing Trump, Scott very early on took his name out of consideration for vice president.

If you talk, however, to those who know Scott and his thinking, they point to another possibility for the future: Scott mounting his own campaign for president in 2020.

It may be seem far-fetched to those who point to Scott's so-so favorable ratings in Florida, the fact that he had to spend roughly $85 million of his own money to win his campaigns for governor, and of course the federal investigation and record fines levied against the company he used to lead.

But consider where he stands now _ and how his political fortunes may change depending on what happens in this year's presidential election.

Part of his message crafted by his own set of political advisers, which includes the team from On Message Inc. as well as his former campaign manager/chief of staff Melissa Stone, has been Scott's consistent criticism of the federal government and Obama on multiple fronts.

If Clinton beats Trump, that stays in Scott's political handbook. He can continue to go after the federal government on a multitude of issues, just as he has on Ebola, Zika, the algae blooms etc. etc.

Scott has to change his adversarial tone, however, if Trump wins the presidency (and the Republicans hold onto Congress.)

Scott has said in recent television interviews that he could accomplish so much more if Trump were to succeed. But that brushes asides the complicated political reality that Republicans in Florida are split. This situation could limit what he will be able to accomplish in his final two years in office.

Think about this - Scott has been refusing to raise money for the Republican Party of Florida, but now he has agreed to raise the millions needed to battle Clinton between now and November.

Incoming House Speaker Richard Corcoran and Incoming Senate President Joe Negron have made it clear that they plan to have their own broad agenda on everything from ethics/lobbying reform, higher education, changes to the judiciary. They have been forging a path during this election cycle using the money they have raised on their own and with very little assistance from the governor. Now Scott may align himself with Negron (the old 2 vs. 1 strategy that many legislative leaders have used in the past) but he still may difficulty pursuing his own agenda.

So where does that leave Scott heading forward? It may not matter that much.

While Scott has set adrift several of his campaign promises as governor - and zig-zagged on issues such as Medicaid expansion and immigration - he will be able to point to the state's economic recovery and job growth and declare his tenure as a success. (We'll set aside the whole 700,000 jobs vs. 1.7 million jobs promise and what is the true cause of the recovery for now.) And as of now it's a pretty good likelihood the number of jobs under Scott's watch will likely grow between now and 2018.

So that gives Scott the platform in 2020 to say that he's got a track record of success as an outsider businessman turned politician. He will note he cut Florida's debt and dealt with budget deficits.

It's true he doesn't have the polish of other speakers, or the ability to attract attention the way that Trump has, but his efforts in helping Trump will give him the ability to argue that he was a loyal Republican as opposed to some others who also may be considering a GOP bid four years from now.

Many political insiders have tried to discount Scott for years now. That proved to be a mistake in 2010 and 2014. It could be the same four years from now.

The elephant in the room for Florida Republicans

As the Republican National Convention kicks off this coming week the official word is that everything is a-o.k. with Florida Republicans.

Despite that fact that many of the state's 99 Florida delegates supported other candidates ahead of the primaries none of them have been wishing out loud that someone else besides Donald Trump was the presumptive GOP nominee. No talk of blocking delegates from attending or lawsuits.

"The Florida delegation is totally united,'' said Republican Party of Florida Chairman Blaise Ingoglia on CNN on Saturday.

Yet while the delegation will certainly follow the rules and give all 99 Florida votes to Trump a lot of questions remain about the state of the party and the fact that top Republicans in the state are divided into factions.

There's a whole long list of things to consider (including the fact that former Gov. Jeb Bush and his staunchest supporters aren't on board with Trump) but let's just start with the strange situation with the Republican primary for U.S. Senate after incumbent U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio went back on his oft-repeated promise to not to run for election.

Most of the other GOP candidates jumped out once Rubio changed his mind. But Manatee County homebuilder and political newcomer Carlos Beruff didn't. And that was just fine with GOP governor Rick Scott, who came close to endorsing Beruff over Rubio (seen here campaigning for Scott's re-election.) (Also worth noting: Rubio has not been endorsed by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has a speaking slot at the convention.)

Yet at the same time - Scott's own lieutenant governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera is now actively campaigning for his good friend Rubio and against Beruff.

Beruff this past week went on Florida airwaves with an ad that smacked Rubio, saying he wasn't backing Trump and suggested it had to do with Rubio' s stance on immigration. Lopez-Cantera was the first to fire back by citing Beruff's decision to back Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate race (even after Crist had switched from being a Republican to being an independent.) 

"He’s a Crist insider who values political opportunity over Florida’s conservative principles,'' Lopez-Cantera said in a statement distributed by the Rubio campaign.

Then a Super PAC supporting Rubio said it was going up with its own ad to go after Beruff.

Adding to this mix was the suggestion - although knocked down by the Beruff campaign - that maybe, just maybe Beruff was staying in the race against Rubio not to win - but to build his name recognition in a possible bid for governor in 2018.

Scott, talking to one of his former top aides, even chimed in and said that "my experience with Carlos is, whatever he puts his mind to, he’s going to be successful. Whether that’s trying to make sure his customers get what they want, or anything else, Carlos will be successful.”

For those not completely immersed in inside Capitol Circle talk - that's a shot at the presumed campaign of Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. The icy relationship between Putnam and Scott goes back years. You can bet there are people whispering to Putnam that he needs to be prepared so that he isn't "McCollumed" - a reference to the fact that then Attorney General Bill McCullom was considered a shoo-in for the GOP nomination for governor in 2010 until Scott jumped in at the last minute and self-funded his campaign.

Then there's the whole money thing for all Republicans.

Despite having no announced plans beyond 2018, Scott keeps raising money for his Let's Get to Work political committee and not the Republican Party of Florida as part of the continued fallout after Ingoglia won the chairmanship back in early 2015 over Scott's own handpicked candidate.

Scott has raised more than $1.8 million so far this year for his committee of which he transferred $95,000 back in January to the party. Yes there's a persistent rumor that Scott may run for U.S. Senate, but it's important to point out under campaign finance laws that Scott can't directly use this money - which is from corporate donations - for a federal race.

Now it's true that the Republican National Committee has put in money into the state that has been used to hire ground staff, but what message does it send to donors and others that the state's leading Republican isn't helping out his own party that much?

Lots of political insiders in Tallahassee keep grumbling about the situation and grumbling whether or not Scott's recalcitrance is diverting resources that could at least pay for certain types of party expenses. And remember the Beruff situation? That could increase pressure on Putnam to raise more money for his political committee. (Putnam did give the state party a $25,000 check in June.)

Of course none of this is totally surprising given the awkward relationship Scott has had since he knocked off McCollum even though the veteran politician had support from many establishment Republicans. In the background are GOP consultants with competing agendas and competing candidates ahead of the 2018 elections.

Maybe it's not a big problem.

After all Florida's Democrats continue to have their own history of problems come election time and the rise-and-fall of presidential campaigns has usually been more dependent on the the actual campaigns and not the state party. (There's still bad blood between state operatives and the campaign of 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney as state people contended Romney's folks ignored their advice ahead of a narrow loss to President Barack Obama.)

But after close to 20 years of GOP domination it's still out of character to see so many fault lines and shifting loyalties.

Add it all up and it could matter in a swing state where only a few thousand  - or few hundred ballots - can make a difference in the leader of the free world.

5 biggest questions for the 2016 session

After one of the most tumultuous years since Republicans assumed control of the Florida Legislature - the GOP-controlled House and Senate return this week for a 60-day jaunt that many legislative leaders hope/predict is relatively calm and uneventful heading into what could be a highly unpredictable election year.

Most insiders of course can recount the score: The budget meltdown, the abrupt ending of the 2015 regular session, two failed redistricting special sessions, a budget finally passed with days to go before a state government shutdown.

Legislators are returning early this year as part of an experiment to move up the date so that lawmakers can be back home in time to spend spring break with their families. (It would take a change in the constitution to move up session start for every year.)

Here then are the 5 biggest questions of session:

Can everybody just get along?

The expectation is that the resolution of the long-simmering Senate presidency battle (which was won by Sen. Joe Negron) and the Senate's tabling of Medicaid expansion should make it easier to reach a consensus on the state budget and other issues. Throw in the fact that it's an election year and there is an anticipation that there will be a willingness to compromise. But that may not capture the complicated situation at hand.

First all, there's Gov. Rick Scott who enters the session with a longer wish list than normal. And it's not just the $1 billion tax cut package and Enterprise Florida reforms that the governor wants (although that appears to be a big ask). Scott put together a $3 billion gambling deal with the Seminoles and he's also pursuing his health care transparency package.

Last year Scott showed that there is a price to pay (through his substantial budget vetoes) if you don't go his way. So you can be assured that remains on the minds of many legislators.

But let's not forget there are some Scott agency heads whose fates remained unresolved, or that there remains a split in fundraising/political activities that has resulted in the Senate and Scott raising money separately from the party. You can also throw in the whole unsettled situation in the Senate due to a redrawn state Senate map that could theoretically force some senators to moderate their positions.

Lastly, a key question is how supporters of former Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio in the Legislature will view Scott's decision to nudge ever so closely to endorsing GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Say what you will about the sausage-making in the state Capitol a lot of it still depends on connections and relationships and many of the items cited could play a role. And if Scott is viewed as isolated from members of his party then there is even less willingness to work with him.

Is it possible to ever reach an agreement on gambling?

Well, you certainly wouldn't want to bet on it given the competing forces (including dog and horse tracks from outside of South Florida) who don't like some of the fine print on the deal that Scott reached with the Seminole Tribe. In the past few years attempts to pass major gambling bills have floundered amid the Scylla and Charybdis that exists in the Legislature on this issue.

But Scott remains a wild card on this. The governor, who began his business career as a deal maker, put together a proposed compact with tribal officials that was guaranteed to get big headlines and promised a big payout.

Throughout his time as governor Scott has remained, for lack of a better word, agnostic about gambling in the state. In other words, the governor isn't going to back the tribe, the dog tracks, the anti-gambling factions including Disney, Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, or even Trump at all cost.

It would not be surprising if Scott's approach is basically: 'Hey, I helped put together a deal. Tribe, it's up to you and your lobbyists to get it passed.' And more importantly, is Scott amenable to changes as long as the overarching achievement - the money in the state's bank account is unchanged? Signs point to yes.

Tribal officials - who are still locked in a court battle over whether they can keep blackjack tables in their casinos under the 2010 deal that expired last summer - may have to decide if they need to cobble together something that makes everyone happy. Or decide if they could take their chances and just wait until next year.

Scott has been very deferential so far in his public pronouncements and has made it clear that it's up to the Legislature to work something out. If it doesn't happen the governor can maintain it wasn't his fault.

How many gun bills will reach their target?

Apart from the budget and gambling battles, you can expect a fair amount of attention in the media to be focused on the gun bills already moving through the Legislature. These include bills allowing open carry of firearms, guns on college campuses and changes to the Stand Your Ground law.

The decision by legislative leaders to already allow these bills to move through legislative committees even before the start of the 60-day session is a sign that there is considerable support for them.

And President Barack Obama's decision to pursue actions on guns on the federal level will likely add momentum as GOP legislators will be able to contrast their actions at the state level with what's happening with D.C.

Plus long-time National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer has made it abundantly clear that she and her supporters have no plans to modify their stances on these bills. Hammer has told everyone that she will be keep pushing the legislation for as long as it takes.

Put that together and it would reasonable to assume that most, if not all, of the bills stand a good chance of reaching Scott's desk later this year. Yes, there is opposition to the various bills, including Florida State University President John Thrasher and university police chiefs on campus carry to some of Florida's sheriff's on open carry.

But the gun bills give Republicans a chance to do something that will fire up their own political base heading into what could be a chaotic election season.

There is a caveat with all of this though and that's the unresolved question of whether the new Senate districts (which appear to tilt toward Democrats) will persuade some senators that contentious issues of this sort need to be put on hold until 2017.

How will the growing power of Joe Negron and Richard Corcoran affect the process?

The general theory about the Legislature is that the influence/power of the outgoing legislative leaders begins to ebb during their second session while the clout of their successors begins to grow.

There have been exceptions to that rule over the years i.e. Dean Cannon as House speaker and John McKay as Senate president.

There will be those who will make snide comments that Corcoran, a former top aide to Rubio and current House budget chief, already has considerable sway in the House. Yes there are many signs that he does wield a good deal of influence, but expect it to get even larger.

Among some insiders who follow the process the operating theory right now is that House Speaker Steve Crisafulli and Senate President Andy Gardiner will get to watch their top priorities pass in the opening days of the session. (For Crisafulli, a potential Agriculture Commissioner candidate, that's a comprehensive water bill, while for Gardiner it's bills to aid families with children who have developmental disabilities.)

After that moment of comity, the rest of the session will be conducted in Corcoran and Negron's shadow. That could affect plenty of important bills, whether it's Negron's support of a measure to legalize/regulate fantasy sports to the judiciary reforms that Corcoran has already promised to push through.

Other considerations: Negron, an attorney, has clashed in the past with the insurance industry so that may make it hard for them to push through changes opposed by trial attorneys such as the revamp of assignment of benefits. Corcoran - along with his successor Rep. Jose Oliva - have expressed skepticism about for targeted business incentives like those championed by Scott or for items such as film incentives or subsidies to sports teams and operations.

Will this really be a do-nothing year for the Florida Legislature?

Talk to most lobbyists and they will quietly concur: This may be a really tough year to get anything substantial passed.

The reasons are many, starting with the epic battles of last year (see No. 1) to what appears to be an unpredictable election year (see Trump, Donald.)

There is a feeling right now that any attempt to move major changes/reforms in key areas will be difficult. It's not just the gambling deal with the tribe. This could flow to everything else including the types of tax cuts, health care changes pursued by the House to some of the environmental bills being pursued to alimony reform and major education bills. If Republican leaders are intent on putting aside any public disagreements then the easiest way may be to just deep-six many of the more contentious proposals.

As of this past weekend, 1,644 bills have been filed which does appear to put the Legislature on pace to meet last year's totals so maybe legislators themselves remain somewhat optimistic that they can things done. There is always a natural tendency for the Legislature to try to fix/improve/change things and have something to campaign about in the fall.

But the most substantial year for legislation in recent years was 2011 when you had a new governor and a supermajority in the Legislature following the 2010 wave year for the GOP. That track record suggests that 2016 will be relatively quiet.

Gov. Rick Scott's script for 2016

It's always been an open secret that Florida Gov. Rick Scott sticks to a script when he talks in public, especially when he occasionally answers questions from the press.

A reminder of that came recently when his office posted copies of what it calls "Driving Message" in response to a public records request by Tampa Bay Times reporter Steve Bousquet.

The information from October and November is essentially a rolling set of questions on topics/news of the day that includes the answer that Scott is supposed to be given when asked. The responses cover everything from campus carry gun legislation to what he thinks about GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and why he's opposed to raising the minimum wage. ("Increasing the minimum wage will result in losing jobs.")

And the answers included in the documents are exactly what Scott has said about the various topics, whether it's a question about suspending school grades or the handling of Syrian refugees by federal government.

The talking points also give a small amount of insight about how Scott may handle issues in the near future.

The remarks, for instance, say he's not endorsing any GOP candidates for president "today" but they include praise for Trump despite the criticism aimed at the businessman from fellow GOP candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

"I think people in Washington are trying to figure out why Trump is doing so well, but the reality is he is saying what he thinks. He is not being politically correct. I think a lot of people find that refreshing," state Scott's talking points.

Coupled with other things he has said about Trump _ and the fact that some of his own key supporters/campaign people are now working for him _ it would be plausible for Scott to endorse him ahead of the March GOP primary in Florida. (Although Scott has generally avoided getting involved in primaries given his own bitter, divisive primary for governor back in 2010 when he ran against establishment-backed candidate Bill McCollum.)

The answers included in the document regarding a bill that would allow concealed weapon holders to bring their guns on university campuses suggests that the Scott administration may have some doubts about the legislation. ("I am not sure there is a silver bullet solution, but college should be a safe place students go to learn, not a place of violence.")

But the main question is whether Scott and his team will revise this script as they head into 2016 and a session that starts in less than two weeks.

His talking points on tax cuts, hospital transparency, the proposed deal with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and Enterprise Florida reforms don't fully explain Scott's logic. In other words, how exactly will Scott sell this?

Despite a contentious 2015 session that saw the GOP-controlled Legislature pare back, or ignore completely, many of his recommendations, Scott actually is pushing ahead with a more detailed agenda this upcoming session than he has during the last few years. And that creates plenty of potential flashpoints in the weeks and months ahead.

There's no doubt that his $1 billion tax cut package and his request of $250 million for business incentives are his top priorities as Scott makes a case to diversify the state's economy. He will make the argument in January - during a tour to emphasize job growth under his watch - that the state's economic recovery will not hold if more isn't done.

The problem for Scott and his team is that there is a wide divide in the House and Senate (which has been unable to agree on many top issues in the past year) on the right approach of so many of the items on Scott's 2016 checklist.

Gambling? It's not clear that there's enough votes in the Senate for the $3 billion deal proposed by Scott that would give craps and roulette to the Seminoles. But the House may not go along with the deal unless it includes a constitutional amendment that bars any future expansion. Senate President Andy Gardiner has said he's not sure there's enough votes in the Senate to pass such an amendment.

Business incentives? While the House and Senate may be willing to endorse Scott's "reforms" in regards to process, the idea of placing such a large amount of money in the governor's hands is viewed suspiciously by some House conservatives who consider incentives an intrusion into the marketplace.

Tax cuts? The amount is a hard goal to reach without making cuts elsewhere in the budget - which is something that legislators about to hit the campaign trail don't want hanging over their head. Another complication is that there is growing resistance to the reliance on increased local property taxes to help pay for school funding. House and Senate leaders say they like "tax cuts," but there is also divergence on whether those cuts should be more directed at individuals, not companies as Scott has largely proposed.

Hospital transparency? Scott's ongoing efforts to go after Florida's hospitals - including a price cap - includes some proposals that may strike some conservatives as intrusive government regulation not a free-market solution. House leaders have been pushing policies that they say will open up health care to more competition, while top Senate Republicans seem to have little interest in any of the ideas.

Scott, of course, has his veto pen as the ultimate bargaining tool as he deals with recalcitrant legislators.

The decision of Jesse Panuccio to resign from his job as the head of the Department of Economic Opportunity rather than confront a messy confirmation battle removed one potential point of leverage for the Florida Senate. But there are other agency heads whose adherence to Scott's agenda and seeming resistance to legislative instructions may make it difficult for them to survive what could be a messy session.

If the Legislature were in fact able to put together a budget quickly and present it to Scott before the end of the 60-day session, it would create a conundrum for the governor. He would be forced to act on legislative budget priorities within 7 days which would give lawmakers the ability to decide whether to approve some of Scott's top priorities based on how he handled the budget.

Another problem for Scott is that the consuming lobbying frenzy over the compact with the Seminole Tribe may distract legislators as they try to cobble together enough votes to pass something. (One possible solution is to have lawmakers pass the main compact, with the promise they will pass bills in 2017 to deal with other parts of the gambling industry.)

As all of this unfolds during the next two months, the question is whether Scott and his team will provide new answers, new insights and new arguments to counter the pushback that the governor is going to likely encounter.

Or will Scott stick to his oft-repeated line that he used time and time again where he will say that he expects the Legislature to "do the right thing" and vote exactly how he wants them to without explaining how, or why legislators should do that.

Maybe that will be the "driving message" that needs to be answered later in 2016.

"Devious plans" -- how Jeb Bush's words continue to haunt him

It came while Jeb Bush was in the middle of a hard-fought campaign.

It was the kind of comment that created a torrent of coverage that threatened to upend the supposed Bush juggernaut.

But it didn't happen this year. Try 13 years ago.

When running for re-election as governor, Bush was caught on tape during a meeting in his Capitol office in Tallahassee boasting about how he had "devious plans" if a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with class size pushed by rival (and then State Sen.) Kendrick Meek was ultimately adopted by voters.

Bush had used the proposal _ which called for reducing class sizes in all levels of Florida schools _ as a way to attack Democrat Bill McBride. While McBride advocated for passage of the amendment Bush warned it would trigger massive tax hikes. Bush proclaimed that if it passed it would "blot out the sun."

So during a meeting with people from Pensacola _ including a sitting state legislator _ Bush was apparently unaware that a reporter was in the room with him and the tape recorder was rolling when talk turned to the pending amendment.

"I've got a couple of devious plans if this thing passes," said Bush with a sarcastic tone.

That same tape also shows that Bush joked about the sexual orientation of the women involved in the tragic disappearance of foster child Rilya Wilson and that he talked about trying to raise teacher salaries in a way that would bypass teacher unions.

Bush would later contend he didn't know he was being taped, but the remarks placed his campaign on the defense and was a major gaffe with just weeks to go before voters headed to the polls.

And in a way, it was his campaign that had inadvertently allowed the damaging incident to occur.

That's because the Gannett reporter who taped the remarks during the meeting was not allowed to be rotated in on a campaign bus with Bush earlier that same year.

Todd Harris, a communications and political strategist who would later go to work for Marco Rubio and other prominent GOP candidates, made a calculated decision as to who would spend time with Bush and who couldn't. Those decisions weren't based so much on actual coverage, but whether or not the media outlet audience was someone the campaign was targeting. Despite the request from reporter Alisa LaPolt to be included on the bus, Harris turned her down and used a bit of profanity to express how he didn't care about Gannett's coverage about Bush.

So in other words, if LaPolt had been on the bus with other reporters then a few weeks later it's reasonable to conclude Bush would have recognized her when she came into his office.

The relevance of this Bush history is to recount how the Republican's history of making seemingly off-the-cuff remarks is not new.

And among Tallahassee reporters it was one of the main drawbacks that some had cited about a campaign for presidency. Many reporters who covered him closely had wondered whether Bush - who at times has a prickly personality - would be able to sustain himself through a gauntlet of national media coverage where every word is followed closely and then amplified in a world of social media.

Bush's comments of seemingly awkward comments dated all the way back to his 1994 bid for governor when he said he would probably do nothing for black voters if he were elected. He was caught on camera saying "kick their asses out" when Meek and another legislator held a sit-in protest in the governor's suite of offices over Bush's efforts to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions and state spending. (Bush's staff would later contend he was referring to reporters, not Meek and then State Rep. Tony Hill.)

So far on the campaign trail this year, Bush had made a long line of comments that have drawn scrutiny, including "stuff happens" and the "free stuff" comment regarding how Democrats appeal to black voters.

For Bush these comments have overwhelmed the narrative that the campaign has tried to put together from day one. (That Bush is a consistent conservative reformer with an actual track record that shows his dedication to getting things accomplished.) The mostly unscripted moments for Bush have also come on top of a vetting by news organizations that many of the other candidates have not yet gone through.

While Bush is a wonky person who loves to delve into details and can often go head to head with reporters, he can also be impatient and terse when confronted with questions.

Another great moment from the 2002 campaign: During a stop at the Ham Jam festival in northeast Florida, Bush's campaign apparently didn't have the governor's visit to the barbecue/country music event completely mapped out.

In a scene almost out of Spinal Tap, Bush and his entourage are wandering around behind the stage set up at the festival trying to figure out where he is supposed to go.

Walking through the thin haze of smoke that hangs over the site, they go around to one side, double back and then back to the same place they were previously. Finally an exasperated Bush _ waving his hands at the press contingent following him _ snaps at a staffer "Where are we going? I'm not going to talk to them again. I've already talked to them."

Of course in the end Bush prevailed in that election due to his organization, his cash advantage and the fumbled campaign of his opponent. He may prevail again in the long-drawn out GOP primary for president. It could be that some of his quips could help him counter the "low energy" cracks made by Donald Trump.

But his last state campaign was waged during a different media era. It was also an environment where there was not around-the-clock dissection of every move. Bush has to remain engaged on the campaign trail as the primaries draw closer. And that means there could be another unscripted moment that could cause even more headaches for him.

Did Jeb Bush just save Florida's maligned lobbyist gift ban?

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush returned to the state capital on Monday to outline his plans to overhaul the culture of Washington D.C.

And in doing so - he may have  _ to the consternation of some of those in the audience helped preserve the state's lobbyist gift ban.

The ban was enacted in late 2005 - one of the strictest regulations in the country at the time - and came after legislative wrangling that was an outgrowth of changes sought by then-Senate President Tom Lee.

For a national audience it may have sounded Monday as if Bush was the instigator of the ban.

"I know how that culture works,'' Bush said. "I saw it here in Tallahassee. Over time, lobbyists and legislators grew a little too comfortable in each other’s company, cutting deals that didn’t have much to do with the public interest. So along with the other changes we made, the Florida Legislature passed a law that I signed into law that created the strictest lobbying reforms in the country."

There's nothing inaccurate in that statement. But it does kind of brush aside a bit of the back story that existed in the development of the ban since it was legislators, not the governor, who was the main driver of the change.

Lee's goal was never to ban anything. He advocated two things: Disclosure of the freebies that lobbyists gave to legislators - and disclosure of how much money lobbyists were paid.

Lee told reporters at the time that they would be surprised how much money was in the system, and how that disclosure would shed a light on why the Legislature did some of the things that it did.

The Brandon Republican made his push for changes at the same time that a series of articles _ many of them in The Miami Herald _ that showed how the state's existing disclosure and gift laws had been flouted.

One example: Legislators couldn't accept anything more than $100 - and items lower than that but higher than $25 were supposed to be reported. Lobbyists would routinely agree to split the costs among themselves and spread it to multiple legislators to sidestep this requirement.

Other stories disclosed how one legislator solicited contributions from lobbyists for a trip to Africa, while another described a lavish engagement party held for one legislator and paid for lobbyists.

Lee's push initially went nowhere - but the issue gained momentum after the Herald published a story in late 2005 that pointed out four legislators flew to Canada on a private jet and visited a casino. They argued that they were raising money for the Republican Party of Florida so it was legal. But the cost of the trip was much more higher than the money raised. Plus it came at a time when legislators were considering how to implement a constitutional amendment dealing with gambling in South Florida.

During a special session late that year Lee pushed to add the gift ban to the mix since it was not included in the initial call issued by Bush. (The special session was called to implement an overhaul of Medicaid and to implement the amendment that allowed slot machines in Broward and Miami-Dade counties.)

The initial Senate bill did not ban everything. Instead it required detailed reporting of who provided meals and beverages to legislators on an individual basis. But it was the House _ led then by Speaker Allan Bense _ that moved a bill that called for a complete ban.

The telling of the tale since then has posited that Bense and the House did not like the disclosure requirements pushed by Lee so they countered with such a Draconian measure that the Senate would reject it. Only that didn't happen. Lee and the Senate amended their bill to match the House measure and sent it over. Just 9 legislators voted no. Bush eagerly signed the measure into law.

"I applaud President Lee and Speaker Bense for their leadership in reforming the political status quo,'' Bush said at the time. "This measure increases transparency and accountability for the political process."

Since then the ban has survived a legal challenge, but the criticism against it has been steadily mounting, including those who note that there are legal ways for legislators to sidestep it. One key way: Solicit money from lobbyists for political committees and then use that money to pay for meals and other items.

Some lobbyists have complained that the gift ban has somehow distorted the process because they can't share a meal, or drink with legislators and that the ones with access are those who raise large amounts of money for campaigns and political committees.

Tallahassee-area legislators have maintained _ with little empirical data _ that the gift ban hurt the local economy.

Last year marked the first time since 2005 that an attempt to alter the gift ban statute made it through the process. The bill made a relatively minor tweak by making it clear that a local government that gives a legislator use of public property for a public purpose does not violate the gift ban if the local government has hired lobbyists.

But the passage of the bill included several asides from legislators that more substantial changes should be made to the law in the near future.

Bush may have blunted that momentum for now by citing the ban as a justification for a series of reforms he wants to push if elected president.

"I think the system is significantly better after that law was passed,'' Bush told a crowd gathered at Florida State University.

Now for certain it was an interesting crowd for Bush to make the remark since many of those in attendance are themselves lobbyists.

Some of the news accounts noted the connection that Bush himself has to lobbyists, including that his top adviser, Sally Bradshaw, is married to Paul Bradshaw, who founded one of Tallahassee's most successful lobbying firms Southern Strategy Group.

But by placing the gift ban into the orbit of his legacy Bush has created a rationale for top Republicans in the Legislature to support keeping it in largely intact for now. Many top GOP leaders are backing Bush for president.

It still may have been unlikely that the gift ban would have been revamped during the 2016 election year but Bush's decision to champion it may make that an even more remote possibility.

The myths and mystery of Jeb Bush

The 2016 campaign for president appeared to begin in earnest in the wake of a recently New York Times article that suggested that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was already beginning to weigh financial and family considerations of a potential bid for president.

The timing of the article drew immediate attention from the national media and a steady stream of "will he run?" stories.

And Bush has remained in the news since then due to his national education summit held in Washington D.C. and his decision to take the post of chairman of the board of trustees of the National Constitution Center. There was even a recent piece in Time where he talked about education and joked that he has breaking out in a rash each time someone calls him a "centrist."

For those of us who follow Bush _ and keep in touch with people still in his orbit _ it is not a surprise that the presidential buzz is already starting since it appeared that the governor made a calculated decision early on in the 2012 cycle that this was not the time to run.

In other words, one could argue that Jeb instinctively knew that President Barack Obama would be very difficult to beat. And it probably would have been even more of an uphill battle for Bush. One Bush ally told me that heading into this year's presidential election the former governor himself was cognizant that there could still be "Bush fatigue" from his brother's stint as president.

But the mystery of will Jeb run in 2016 is likely to be less about his brother and more about what makes sense for him and his family.

The plain fact is that some in the national media would likely delve deeply into Bush's family life if he ran. This would like lead to the re-airing, re-reporting of troubles with his daughter Noelle Bush and even Columba Bush's run-in with U.S. customs agents. Yes, one could argue that the neither have any bearing on whether Bush is qualified for president. But it would be naive to think that stories like this would not be played back up on a national level should Bush mount a serious campaign.

That means that Jeb Bush has to make a calculated decision on whether the presidency is worth the avalanche of coverage that would come with a run for the White House. Bush, who does display flashes of anger from time to time, made it clear to the press corps in Tallahassee that questions about his family were out-of-bounds (although Bush himself did talk about his daughter on national television.) Bush's ability to exert any level of control on the national media, however, would be non-existent.

But as the national media begin to ponder a Bush run it's interesting to see the coverage that includes the following:

Bush is no longer really a conservative. Bush should step aside for fresh faces like U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. Bush has been too deferential to President Obama and by extension the Democrats.

This is a fascinating narrative since it conflicts with the reality of his record.

To begin with - Bush's record as governor eclipses anything that Rubio has accomplished so far. Rubio's stint as House speaker left very much a mixed record. It's true he clashed with then-Gov. Charlie Crist on things such as expanded gambling, but Rubio also did things like endorse an expansion of state intervention into property insurance that was decried by conservatives. Rubio has maintained a fairly consistent voting record in the Senate in the last two years and inspired Republicans with his soaring rhetoric and his defense of American exceptionalism. But the plain fact is that Bush stands right now as one of the most substantial governors in the history of Florida in the last 50 years.

The success of his achievements can be questioned _ such as in a recent piece by Reuters _ but it's worth looking back at what happened during his eight years in office.

For those who may have forgotten, consider this a Bush primer:

1. During his two terms as governor, Bush pursued a series of education reform policies that were constantly criticized and villified by some of the mainstays of the Democratic Party. He pursued a school voucher program for students in chronically-failing schools that was eventually struck down by the state Supreme Court. The state's teacher union was so dramatically opposed to Bush that it spent money on independent television ads that helped propel little-known Tampa lawyer Bill McBride past former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. One of the emerging narratives happening in Florida politics now is that current Gov. Rick Scott has slowly begun challenging the underpinnings of some of the reforms, such as high-stakes testing. While Scott remains a firm backer of vouchers, he advocated this week for requiring students who receive vouchers to take the same tests as public school students. This is a stark turn-around from the position that has been taken by Bush and his allies.

2. Bush was staunchly pro-life during his terms as governor and was at the heart of the Terri Schiavo controversy. Bush's role in trying to keep Schiavo alive could in fact harm him during a run for the presidency. Not only did he support the legislation that attempted to bypass court rulings dealing with Schiavo but there were stories at the time that Bush contemplated sending in law-enforcement to seize Ms. Schiavo. The governor's office officially denied the reports at the time, but it would very likely there would be a re-airing of the entire controversy.

3. Bush's fiscal bonafides. While he was governor, state spending continued to rise as the continued rise in the real estate market led to record heights in the amount of state taxes that were taken in. But Bush also pursued some of the largest tax cuts in the history of the state _ including pushing for $1 billion worth of tax cuts in his first year in office. His handling of state finances was rewarded with stellar triple AAA bond ratings.

4. Bush took on public sector employees and their unions. During his term in office, Bush tried to make major reforms in public employee pensions. He was unsuccessful in his bid to force all new state employees to choose a 401 (K) styled plan but he got it an optional version. Bush also successfully argued for _ and got approval from the Legislature _ to reclassify roughly 16,000 career service employees into positions where they no longer had the same job protections.

5. Bush took the charge in eliminating some of the affirmative action programs in place in the state. Bush signed an executive order that removed affirmative action policies in state purchasing and got the state panel that oversaw the state university system to revamp admission policies to remove race as factor for consideration. During his first run for office in 1994, Bush was asked by a woman what he would do for black people if he were elected. "Probably nothing,'' Bush said at the time. Bush's push against affirmative action sparked a backlash led by then State Sen. Kendrick Meek and resulted in one of the largest protests ever on the steps of the Capitol. Meek and others used their anger over Bush's actions to rally voters against Bush's brother in the 2000 presidential election (and we know how that turned out in Florida.)

And if that wasn't enough consider this: Bush overhauled the death penalty, pushed through a huge expansion in the use of economic incentives to try to jumpstart the biotech industry, rallied voters to repeal a high-speed rail mandate, went after trial lawyers by trying to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, tried to undo a constitutional amendment (pushed by his nemesis Kendrick Meek) that mandated smaller class sizes, strengthened the power of the governor over the judiciary, and responded forcefully and efficiently to eight hurricanes that hit the state in 2004 and 2005.

The one area where Bush has been at odds with his fellow conservatives is over the issue of immigration. While Rubio's position on immigration has evolved and shifted as his political career has advanced, the governor has taken some stances that could cost him votes. Bush has not only criticized the tone and rhetoric about the issue, but he himself has even taken stances that illegal immigrants should be given access to driver's licenses.

As the speculation about Bush's future continues to heat up, it will be interesting to see if there is a continued attempt to rebrand Bush into someone who doesn't resemble the man who led the Sunshine State for eight years.

The 6 counties that could make or break President Obama or Mitt Romney in Florida

In the run-up to today's election, there's been an avalanche of polls, a whole lot of spin and a lot of competing predictions about who will win Florida.

Complaints from conservatives have been that the polls have undersampled Republicans and attributed higher turnout to Democrats than will materialize. Democrats, meanwhile, have also questioned the polling models in different ways, including whether there has been an undersample of young people.

Lost in this back-and-forth is a recognition that the election of 2008 isn't quite what it is made out to be here in Florida.

The dominant thinking is that Barack Obama motivated minority voters and young people and created a surge of turnout in 2008.

But what some may have forgotten is that Republican John McCain got more votes in 2008 than President George W. Bush did when he took Florida in 2004.

McCain got 4.04 million votes when he lost the state while Bush received 3.96 million.

The counter-argument, of course, well there was population growth and more voters so it makes sense McCain got more votes.

But there was actually a higher percentage turnout in several counties that McCain won.

Take Brevard County which runs down the east Coast and is home to Cape Canaveral.

Turnout four years ago in this Republican-dominated county was actually 82.5 percent compared to nearly 79 percent in 2004. Turnout was higher in other red counties such as Clay, Lake, Lee, Pasco, Polk, Santa Rosa, Seminole, and St. John's.

Of course despite this McCain won 53 out of Florida's 67 counties. President Bush, by contrast, won 57 out of 67 counties during the 2004 elections.

The question that needs to be asked is whether or not the ongoing changes in demographic makeup in Florida _ and which continued over the last four years _ have scrambled up the traditional thinking about this state.

For example, there are now 1.66 million Hispanic voters compared to 1.35 million just four years ago. Back in 2008 the number of black registered voters actually outnumbered Hispanics. The total number of black voters grew as well from 1.46 million to 1.62 million.

The end result? Even though the number of white registered voters increased overall their percentage of the electorate actually shrank. So four years ago when Obama won the state whites made up 69.1 percent of the electorate. That number has dropped to 66.5 percent.

Certainly the makeup of the Hispanic vote is not like it is in other states _ and Florida's Cuban-Americans have been reliable Republican voters. Another argument has been that Central Florida Hispanics _ many of whom are Puerto Rican _ don't care as much about GOP nominee Mitt Romney's hard line against immigration as other Hispanics.

But let's look at what happened in several key counties back in the last two cycles. These are the counties that will make or break the state for President Obama or former Gov. Romney.

MIAMI-DADE: This is the one that really jumps out. Turnout was actually HIGHER in 2004 when President Bush was on the ballot. Despite the lower turnout McCain nearly got as many votes - 360,000 - that Bush did. So McCain nearly duplicated what the Spanish-speaking brother of the governor of Florida did in 2004. Of course, what happened is that the number of voters in Miami-Dade grew between 2004 and 2008. President Obama got 90,000 more votes than John Kerry did. That's nearly half of the 236,000 vote margin that propelled Obama to win the state. Even if you go with the Republican talking point that Obama's turnout machine will not replicate what happened previously there's a case to be made that Romney will likely have to do better than the past two GOP nominees in this pivotal county in order to hold down Obama's margin.

(UPDATE: Romney got less votes in Miami-Dade than McCain did in 2008, while Obama took in roughly 42,000 more votes than he did the first time around. And this all happened even though turnout was slightly lower than it was in 2008.)

HILLSBOROUGH: Behind Miami-Dade this is probably the second-most important county to watch on election night. Hillsborough had been trending Republican in recent years, yet four years ago Obama took this county. He got nearly 59,000 votes more than Kerry did despite LOWER TURNOUT than in 2004. Additionally, McCain took in only 236,000 votes compared to 245,000 votes for President Bush. If Obama wins Hillsborough then there's probably a good chance he will take the state.

(UPDATE: Obama did win Hillsborough, and therefore he won the state. Again Obama took in more votes in this county during his re-election bid than he did the first time around. While Romney got a higher vote total than McCain did or President Bush did - he still finished 36,000 votes behind Obama, which was roughly the same number as McCain.)

DUVAL: This county will be in the Romney column. No one doubts that. It's just a matter of how big a lead that Romney racks up here. In 2004 Bush won Duval with nearly 58 percent of the vote. McCain, however, won Duval by a slim margin of 50.6 percent.This is the county that Romney needs to do well in order to offset the margins in South Florida.

(UPDATE: President Obama did lose ground here, finishing with 47.8 percent of the vote in Duval, a decline both in percentage and raw totals from 2008. Yet despite that fact Romney only pulled in 1,000 more votes than McCain did. So in other words, Romney did not get the type of advantage he needed in Duval to offset votes elsewhere.)

ORANGE: This was another county that went big for Obama in 2008. He got roughly 80,000 more votes than John Kerry did four years earlier. But the cut in early voting days _ which as we have seen is favored by Democrats _ did have an impact in this county. Not counting the provisional ballots that were cast on Sunday _ the total number of voters who voted early in Orange dropped from just over 145,000 in 2008 to a little more than 127,000 this year according to Bill Cowles, the elections supervisor there. The county had these lower early voting numbers even though the number of registered voters in Orange has jumped up 14 percent. This would seem to suggest that Obama will not repeat the same margin he got previously.

(UPDATE: In the end the voter turnout in Orange County did dip from 2008. But it made little difference in the raw totals. Obama received about the same number of votes in 2012 as he did the first time around. Romney took in only about 2,000 more votes than the president.)

PINELLAS: This county is worth keeping an eye on as a potential trendsetter. Obama won Pinellas four years ago, while Bush won the county in 2004.But this county actually has FEWER active registered voters than it did in 2008. The voter registration gap between Democrats and Republicans is also smaller than it was previously.

(UPDATE: There was a significant decline in Pinellas. President Obama took in 9,000 fewer votes than he did in 2008. But Romney only picked up about 3,000 more votes than McCain did.)

OSCEOLA: There's a reason that former Gov. Jeb Bush and the Romney campaign made a stop in Kissimmee this past Saturday. This county in Central Florida could be the one to really watch on election night. Four years ago President Obama won the county and received nearly 60,000 votes to slightly more than 40,000 votes. That was a dramatic turnaround from 2004 when President Bush won the county with 43,000 votes. The stakes are even higher this year. Voter registration in this county has grown from just under 137,000 in 2008 to more than 163,000 this time out. The number of registered Democrats in this county grew from just under 60,000 to more than 71,000 while GOP registration went up from 40,96 to 43,588. In other words, this county may be the one that proves or disproves the Obama campaign's much hyped ground game.

(UPDATE: And the shift played out as expected. Obama's lead in Osceola was substantially bigger in 2012 than it was in 2008. His vote total went from just under 60,000 to more than 67,000, while Romney's vote total was nearly identical to McCain.)

Partisan wrangling, early voting, and limits on the power of the governor

So what constitutes an emergency?

Do long lines at a polling place, or the possibility of an election meltdown because of the surge in voting crowds constitute an emergency? And does the governor have the power to change that?

That in essence is one of the questions raised by the tug-of-war that has erupted in the last two days over early voting.

Gov. Rick Scott was asked Thursday by former state senator Dan Gelber, the Florida Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters to extend this year's period of early voting through Sunday instead of having it end at 7 p.m. on Saturday night as it now scheduled.

In his own letter Gelber warned that the long ballot (due largely to the Legislature placing the entire text of amendments on it) and the long lines was causing "greater dislocation" at the polls then in 2008. That was the year that former Gov. Charlie Crist wrote an executive order that resulted in early voting hours being extended beyond the statutory limit of 96 hours.

Scott, who signed the law in 2011 that cut the number of early voting days back from a maximum of 14 days to the current 8 days, told reporters on Thursday night that he would not grant the request.

Obviously there is a great deal of partisan wrangling going on here.

In the past year there have been federal lawsuits that challenged the reduction in early voting days. And the lawyers for the Legislature were hard pressed to come up with an explanation of why the early voting days were cut to begin with. In one memorable exchange in court earlier this year a federal judge said there was nothing in the record that showed him any good reason for the decision made by lawmakers to cut back on early voting.

Attorney George Meros at that hearing in Jacksonville contended that legislators could have had private conversations with election supervisors that led to that decision. This past week The Palm Beach Post reported that one of the architects of the law that cut back early voting helped write it after consultation with Republican Party officials.

But let's go back to 2008.

Crist's action at the time to extend early voting was met with disbelief from members of his own party. (Remember, he was still a Republican.) And just as importantly legislative leaders _ including then-House Speaker Marco Rubio _ were a bit skeptical of the legal reasoning that Crist used to extend early voting.

In essence, Crist declared that a "state of emergency" existed due to long lines at early voting locations. He used his emergency powers to order supervisors to keep polling places open. Download Executive_Order_Number_08_217

In his order Crist said that there is "a possibility that election officials will be unable to conduct an orderly election and thus residents in our state could be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to vote." So Crist basically used the power that the governor uses when there is a hurricane or other natural disaster to waive a state law.

I have already written in the past how Crist expanded the use of executive power beyond what traditionally had been done by previous governors, even former Gov. Jeb Bush.

The decision by Crist to extend early voting hours was seen by some Republicans as a decision that helped Barack Obama win Florida.

But at the time Rubio and other top Republicans were reluctant to go into court to challenge the executive order. Part of the problem was timing since the decision came just days before the election and it would have been hard to get a judge to halt the extended hours.

Gelber for his part has argued that the prospect of a problem with an election does in fact constitute an emergency. Plus, he cites the fact that Bush did it as well.

That's true but Bush extended voting hours by 2 hours on Election Day because of problems during the 2002 primary with late opening precincts and ballots that wouldn't scan.

Many major counties were using new voting machines for the first time that had put in place in the wake of the chaotic 2000 presidential election where the vote in Florida wasn't settled until more than a month after Election Day.

In one notable case during that primary former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno _ who was running in the Democratic primary for governor _ had to wait to vote at her own polling place in Miami-Dade County because of problems with the machines.

Now if Election Day turns into a major hassle _ and there are problems at the polling places _ you can expect Democrats to tell Scott "I told you so" and they will use it as ammunition against him on the 2014 campaign trail.

But given the nature of this election you would have to wonder if Scott would have been challenged even if he did issue an executive order.

This time around _ unlike four years ago _ the election result is very much in doubt and it's hard to imagine either side taking a pass on this. At least, however, we would have gotten a judge to decide the extent of the governor's emergency powers.

(Editor note: Sorry for the lack of entries on this blog in the last few weeks. Look for that change in the days and weeks ahead. I truly do appreciate all of those who have enjoyed this blog _ and given me compliments on it since launching it three years ago. My plan is use it to augment _ and go beyond the stories that I do for The Associated Press.)