Short answer:

If the state follows the Florida Supreme Court's orders, then every voter in every county whose ballot was not counted by the machine will have an opportunity to have his/her vote looked at for the first time (the same privilege voters in several other counties have had).  Is this judicial activism -- perhaps; but that is only bad if you think our judiciary was not designed to take action to remedy unfairness and to uphold basic guiding principles in Democracy (see Brown vs. Board of Education). However, it is activism consistent with Florida Law and the Florida Constitution.  The Florida Supreme Court fashioned their ruling around the basic concept of "count every vote and let the will of the voter be heard."  This is the same concept that clearly influenced the circuit court rulings in Seminole and Martin counties, and it is the paragon principle of Democracy that both campaigns have been using to their own advantage regarding military ballots, undervotes in certain counties, and disputed absentee ballots.  In other words, both sides of this controversy have chanted "count of every vote."  Usually that meant only in Dade county or only military ballots, but now we know that every county will get a chance to count every vote.
 

Long answer:

The Florida Supreme Court ordered every county to go back and canvass the ballots not counted by the machines (as required by state law 101.5614 -- quoted below).  This is the same type of count that atleast 10 counties have so far conducted.

Canvassing all the ballots that were legally required to be canvassed from Day 1 is the only way to get close to a fair and accurate result.  Bush's lawyers argued as much themselves during the contest trial before Judge Sauls.  Many, Bush and Gore supporters alike, have echoed this sentiment: count all the uncounted votes, not just those in Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, Seminole, Polk, Orange, Gadsden, Lafayette, etc.

Judge Sauls noted the problem himself in his trial court decision regarding the contest: "  As the state's chief legal officer, I feel a duty to warn that if the final certified total for balloting in the state of Florida includes figures generated from this two-tier system of differing behavior by official  canvassing boards, the state will incur a legal jeopardy under both the United States and state constitutions. This legal  jeopardy could potentially lead Florida to having all of its votes, in effect, disqualified, and this state being barred from the Electoral College's selection of a president."

Unless every county applies the legal standard to their canvass of returns, as 10 did, and canvasses all the ballots (including those not read by the machines), that is exactly what Florida will have.  Of course, even that may not be enough since absentee ballots were subjected to different standards depending upon the county in which they were canvassed.

The State Supreme Court ordered counties to count the undervotes that have never been counted according to standards set forth in Florida election law.   If what really matters is the will of the voter, as both sides have argued effectively when it favored them to do so, then no one should be afraid of canvassing the votes that were legally supposed to be canvassed, counting those that show a clear indication of the will of the voter (the statutory standard), and finding out who really won.

While it is clear that the remedy fashioned by the majority in the Supreme Court is grounded in statutory law and legal precedence, it is also clear that the remedy they fashioned is judicial activism in so far as the courts are forcing counties to go back and count under-votes -- a power not granted expressly to the judiciary without some statutory interpretation.  In other words, a "strict" reading of the law would not lead one to the unequivocal conclusion that the Supreme Court had the power to order such a counting.  It can be construed that way, but only if you read the extensive power of review and remedy granted the judiciary under the contest provisions in Section 102.168 as an open invitation to craft remedies not specifically addressed or sanctioned in the election code.  The Florida Supreme Court definitely read it that way.  Ironically, it was now the Bush lawyers who argued that this broad use of statutorily conferred discretionary power was an effort to change election law, while Secretary Harris's efforts to do the same was not.  Gore's lawyers were also forced to switch arguments with their opponents for it was now they who defended the State Supreme Court's actions as the legitimate use of the discretionary power granted the judiciary in Section 102.168, even though the argued against Harris use of discretionary power pursuant to 102.112.  The subtle, but significant difference between Harris's decision and the courts was that the former was trying to prevent votes from being counted while the latter was trying to make sure that all the votes are counted.

It seems that the implicit overriding standard used by the State Supreme Court was fairness (the bane of judicial constructionists).  Is it fair that a dozen or so counties have manually canvassed their machine rejected ballots, while others have not (this may also be illegal, although that was not argued before the this court)? Similarly, is it fair that a voter's will should be ignored simply because their canvassing board did not canvass their machine rejected ballot, while a voter in another county had their machine rejected ballot canvassed?

The State Supreme Court basically ruled that those 9,000 rejected votes in Dade were enough to place the outcome of the election in doubt (the statutory threshold for a contest). This is similar to the way everyone waited so patiently for the 4000 absentee ballots to be counted -- because those represented enough votes to place in doubt the outcome of the election.  In the
courts mind and in the laws eyes, those are 9,000 uncounted ballots (just like the absentee ballots at one point) in an election separated by 537 ballots. However, they also agreed with Bush's lawyers that you have to count the undervotes across the state to be fair (I bet they wish they never opened their mouth about that).

Here are some relevant excerpts from the Supreme Court's majority decision that reflect the ideas I have highlighted:

Although we find that the appellants are entitled to reversal in part of the trial court's order and are entitled to a manual count of the Miami-Dade County undervote, we agree with the appellees that the ultimate relief would require a counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation.

We do agree, however, that it is absolutely essential in this proceeding and to any final decision, that a manual recount be conducted for all legal votes in this State, not only in Miami-Dade County, but in all Florida counties where there was an undervote, and, hence a concern that not every citizen’s vote was counted. This election should be determined by a careful examination of the votes of Florida’s citizens and not by strategies extraneous to the voting process. This essential.principle, that the outcome of elections be determined by the will of the voters, forms the foundation of the election code enacted by the Florida Legislature and has been consistently applied by this Court in  resolving elections disputes.

Through this statute, the Legislature has granted trial courts broad authority to resolve election disputes and fashion appropriate relief. In turn, this Court, consistent with legislative policy, has pointed to the “will of the voters” as the primary guiding principle to be utilized by trial courts in resolving election contests: [T]he real parties in interest here, not in the legal sense but in realistic terms, are the voters. They are possessed of the ultimate interest and it is they whom we must give primary consideration. The
contestants have direct.interests certainly, but the office they seek is one of high public service and of utmost importance to the people, thus subordinating their interests to that of the people. Ours is a government of, by and for the people. Our federal and state constitutions guarantee the right of the people to take an active part in the process of that government, which for most of our citizens means participation via the election process. The right to vote is the right to participate; it is also the right to speak, but more importantly the right to be heard. Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259, 263 (Fla. 1975) (emphasis added). For example, the Legislature has mandated that no vote shall be ignored “if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter” on the ballot, unless it is “impossible to determine the elector’s choice . . . .” § 101.5614(5)-(6) Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 102.166(7), Florida Statutes (2000), also provides that the focus of any manual examination of a ballot shall be to determine the voter’s intent. The clear message from this legislative policy is that every citizen’s vote be counted whenever possible, whether in an election for a local commissioner or an election for President of the United States.12
 

LEGAL VOTES
Having first identified the proper standard of review, we turn now to the allegations of the complaint filed in this election contest. To test the sufficiency of those allegations and the proof, it is essential to understand what, under Florida law, may constitute a “legal vote,” and what constitutes rejection of such vote. Section 101.5614(5), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that "[n]o vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board.” Section 101.5614(6) provides, conversely, that any vote in which the board cannot discern the intent of the voter must be discarded. Lastly, section 102.166(7)(b) provides that, "[i]f a counting team is.unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.” This legislative emphasis on discerning the voter’s intent is mirrored in the case law of this State, and in that of other states.

This Court has repeatedly held, in accordance with the statutory law of this State, that so long as the voter's intent may be discerned from the ballot, the vote constitutes a "legal vote" that should be counted.