102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.--
5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the
county canvassing board shall:
                    (a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
                    (b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or
                    (c) Manually recount all ballots.

That's all the law says about when a county may conduct a manual recount of every ballot during a protest.  What do you think
the legislature means when it says "error in vote tabulation?"   Do you see a difference between vote tabulation and vote
tabulation system?

Harris issued a legal advisory opinion designed to stop the manual recounts based on her interpretation of what the statute means.  She told counties that manual recounts were only allowed if there was an error in the "vote tabulation system" (she added the word system to the end of vote tabulation in the first sentence) and that such an error did not include the inability of the system to read partially punched ballots (i.e., those with hanging chads).  In no uncertain terms, she decided what the rules of the election were going to be after the election was held by attempting to define what she thinks the legislature meant when it used the phrase "error in vote tabulation."  Adding a word to an election law is a change in election law.

After being overruled on this point by both the Circuit Court and the State Supreme Court, she then attempted to make the whole manual recount process under Section 102.166 obsolete by announcing that she would not accept the results of any such recounts after November 14.  She tried to make it sound like this deadline was cast in stone by 102.112.  However, that Section also gives her the ability to accept late returns.  In the election law world she was trying to create, all the counting had to stop on that day even though manual recounts are allowed to begin on November 14 and the deadline for absentee ballot counting was still 10 days away.  Florida statute only says by when the manual recounts must begin, it does not say by when they should end (unless of course you take the rather absurd position that the legislature expects those who begin full manual recounts on November 14 to finish that same day).  By creating an election world in which the manual recount provisions evaporate on November 14, the same day the law says they can begin, Harris was changing election law.

The State Supreme Court overturned Harris's election law changes.  As for her permutation of the "error in vote tabulation" standard, the State Court ruled that: "The plain language of section 102.166(5) refers to an error in the vote tabulation rather than the vote tabulation system. On its face, the statute does not include any words of limitation; rather, it provides a remedy for any type of mistake made in tabulating ballots."  Regarding the November 14th deadline, the Court argued that Harris has to exercise her discretionary powers under 102.112 in a way that recognizes other provisions, such as those in 102.166.  In other words, all parts of Florida's election laws must be recognized and enforced, and certain provisions can not be interpreted in such a way as to render obsolete other statutory provisions.  The Florida Supreme Court then provided a remedy for Harris's actions by trying to interpret these two provisions in a way that they felt was consistent with the entire statutory scheme (including the contest provisions under 102.168) and other concerns like the Dec. 12 deadline.  In other words, they tried to do Harris' job for her presumably because she had proven her inability or unwillingness to issue guidelines congruent with the entire statute (as opposed to ones that simply facilitated a Bush victory).

Read about how Harris muddled the law regarding the counting of absentee ballots