Bush v. Gore

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. The decision directly affected the result of the 2000 presidential election because it stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida to certify George W. Bush the winner for the State of Florida. With Florida's 25 electoral votes, Bush had enough electoral votes to win the Presidency.

The decision

A 7–2 majority ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, which represented the opinions of five justices, noted significant problems in the uneven way the votes were being recounted. It cited, in particular, the use of differing standards; the combination of full manual recounts for some counties and for selected precincts within Miami-Dade County with partial recounts for other counties and for the rest of Miami-Dade; and the perceived impracticality of the process ordered by the Florida court. Furthermore, this 5-4 majority ruled that no constitutionally-valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline set in statute, effectively ending the recounts. The opinion stated that the state-wide standard ("if the voter's intent is clear, the vote should be counted") could not guarantee that each county would count the votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Related Topics:
Equal Protection Clause - United States Constitution

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The case was steeped in controversy as the majority versus minority opinion on the remedy was split along the lines of the more conservative justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal justices voting in favor of Gore. Additionally, part of the reason recounts could not be completed was due to various stoppages ordered by the various branches and levels of the judiciary. Opponents argued that it was improper for the court (by the same 5–4 majority) to grant an injunction stopping the recounts pending the outcome of the ruling based on the possibility of "irreparable harm" to "George Bush's reputation as the legitimate winner". Injunctions for irreparable harm cannot usually be granted if doing so would do equal or greater harm to another party (in this case, Al Gore).

Related Topics:
Conservative - Liberal

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The minority dissents noted some of these issues and others including the principle of fairness, and the conflicting laws which could be interpreted as invalidating the December 12 deadline. It appears the minority would have wished to allow the recount to continue up until the college of electors were mandated to meet on December 18. The majority, however, accepted the finding of the Florida Supreme Court that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the benefits of Federal statute. This included the December 12 deadline. So, sending the case back to the Florida Supreme Court until December 18 could be not appropriate under Florida statute.

Related Topics:
December 12 - December 18

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html 4th & 5th paragraphs from end, recovered 8/31/05.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens concluded with what many consider to be a scathing indictment:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. 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.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:I respectfully dissent.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The decision was widely criticized for the following sentence in the majority opinion:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The court's defenders considered this a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read overbroadly, arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail other how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable. It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis principle.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In brief the breakdown of the decisions were:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by 5 to 4. (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens opposed)
• The finding that using different standards of counting in different areas without a single overseer violated equal protection was approved by 7 to 2. (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed)
• The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens opposed)