Bush V. Gore: A Constitutional Conundrum

The constitutional question in Bush v. Gore centred on the Equal Protection Clause and its applicability to the 2000 U.S. presidential election recount in Florida. The case arose from a dispute between Republican candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore over the validity of the recount process, specifically the manual recount standards used to assess voter intent. The Supreme Court's ruling, which terminated the recount and awarded Florida's electoral votes to Bush, has been the subject of much debate and criticism, with scholars and legal analysts questioning the court's interpretation of constitutional principles and the potential implications for future elections.

Explore related products

Bush v. Gore: Exposing the Growing Crisis in American Democracy (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$26.36 $32.99

Inside Bush v. Gore (Florida Government and Politics)

$23.57 $24.95

Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary

$24.3 $27

Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore (Oxford History of the United States)

$20.62 $28.99

Bush v. Gore: Deciding the 2000 Presidential Election (The Core Cases Series Book 2)

$0.99

Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy

$65 $73

The constitutionality of recounts

The initial machine recount resulted in a victory for George W. Bush, but by a narrower margin of 327 votes out of six million cast. This triggered a manual recount request from Al Gore, focusing on four traditionally Democratic-leaning counties. The Florida Supreme Court ordered the manual recount, citing the need to include questionable ballots in the final count.

The Bush campaign challenged the legitimacy of these manual recounts, arguing that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. According to Bush, Florida lacked a statewide vote recount standard, allowing each county to determine the validity of ballots independently. This inconsistency, he argued, could lead to identical ballots being counted in one county but rejected in another, violating the principle of equal protection.

Gore countered by asserting that a statewide standard, the "intent of the voter," existed and satisfied the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court, however, terminated the recount process, citing the inability to complete it constitutionally within the time limit. This decision preserved Bush's victory in Florida and, consequently, the U.S. presidency.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore set a precedent for future elections, emphasising the importance of uniform standards in recounts to uphold the Equal Protection Clause. The case highlighted the delicate balance between ensuring accurate vote counts and maintaining public confidence in the legitimacy of election results. The decision's impact extended beyond the 2000 election, influencing how lower courts addressed issues related to ballot counting and rejection in subsequent elections.

The butterfly ballot design

The 2000 US presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore was a close contest that ultimately came down to the state of Florida. The initial results showed Bush with a narrow lead of 1,784 votes, triggering an automatic machine recount. This recount further narrowed Bush's lead to 327 votes, prompting Gore to request a manual recount in four Democrat-leaning counties. This recount was challenged by Bush, leading to the legal case of Bush v. Gore.

One of the key issues in the case was the "butterfly ballot design" used in Palm Beach County. This ballot design caused confusion among voters, resulting in approximately 3,400 votes intended for Gore being cast for third-party candidate Pat Buchanan. This issue was a significant concern, amounting to about 20% of Buchanan's total votes statewide. The Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts of questionable ballots in these counties, but the US Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore terminated the recount process, awarding Florida's electoral votes to Bush and securing his victory.

The interpretation of § 102.168

Section 102.168 outlines the process for contesting an election in Florida. It provides grounds for contesting an election, including the receipt of illegal votes or the rejection of legal votes, which could change or place doubt on the election result (§102.168(3)(c)). The statute also specifies that any contest must be filed in a Florida circuit court (§102.168(1)) and names the canvassing board or election board as the defendant (§102.168(4)).

In Bush v. Gore, the interpretation of § 102.168 was disputed, with Bush arguing that the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation "effectively rewrote" the statute and transcended the accepted bounds of statutory interpretation. He contended that the court's interpretation produced new law untethered to the legislative Act in question. This argument centred on the provision that allowed for contesting election results if there was a "rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election" (§102.168(3)(c)).

The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under § 102.168(3)(c) regarding his challenge to Miami-Dade County's failure to manually tabulate 9,000 "undervotes." The court ordered a hand recount of these ballots, noting that the contest provisions vested broad discretion in the circuit judge to "provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances" (§102.168(8)).

Explore related products

Election Administration in the United States: The State of Reform after Bush v. Gore

$37

Bush v. Gore

$1.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$305

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

The violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

The 2000 US presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore was a highly contested one, with the results in the state of Florida proving to be pivotal. The initial results in Florida showed Bush with a lead of 1,784 votes, which triggered an automatic machine recount. This recount reduced Bush's lead to 327 votes, and Gore requested a manual recount in four counties. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, but the US Supreme Court granted a stay on the recount, citing "irreparable harm" to Bush's campaign.

The US Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was based on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that Florida's use of differing standards for determining voter intent in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause requires uniformity in the rules governing recounts to fulfil each citizen's right to vote. The Court acknowledged that a single impartial magistrate would adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process, but nonetheless held that the varying standards across counties violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court's decision in Bush v. Gore has been widely criticised and analysed. Some scholars argue that the Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause was incorrect, and that the varying standards across counties did not constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Others have criticised the Court's decision to terminate the recount process, arguing that it resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters whose ballots had not been counted. The decision has also been criticised for its lack of precedential value, with lower courts struggling to apply it to subsequent elections.

Despite the controversy surrounding the decision, the US Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore stood, and the recount in Florida was terminated. This resulted in Bush securing Florida's 25 electoral votes and winning the 2000 US presidential election. The case highlights the complexities and challenges of interpreting constitutional principles and ensuring fair and equitable election processes.

The legitimacy of the election

The Bush campaign argued that the recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. They contended that the lack of a uniform statewide recount standard resulted in votes being counted in some counties but rejected in others based on conflicting manual recount criteria. The Gore campaign countered that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of the voter", which complied with the Equal Protection Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to halt the recount and uphold Bush's victory in Florida cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election. Legal scholars and dissenting justices argued that Bush failed to demonstrate a "likelihood of irreparable harm" if the recount were to continue. The Court's ruling prompted strong reactions, with many publications in law reviews being critical of the decision. The case highlighted the complexities and challenges of ensuring a fair and legitimate election process, particularly in the context of recounts and varying voting systems across counties.

The outcome of Bush v. Gore had significant consequences for the nation, as it determined the outcome of the closely contested 2000 presidential election. The case also set a precedent for future elections, particularly regarding the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in the context of vote counting and recount procedures. While the specific circumstances of Bush v. Gore may not serve as a broad precedent, it underscored the importance of uniform and fair election procedures to ensure the legitimacy of election results.

Frequently asked questions