2000 Supreme Court Ruling: Bush Vs. Gore

Professor Blonna
Govt 170
6 October 2012
2000 Supreme Court’s Ruling, Bush vs Gore In December of 2000, the United States Supreme Court made a decision that ended the dispute about the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court 's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The reason for this was the lack of equal treatment of all the ballots cast in Florida. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 (Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors), which is December 12. Three concurring justices also
asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature. There were four justices that submitted dissenting opinions, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice David Souter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Steven Breyer.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens wrote “... once a state legislature determines to select electors through a popular vote, the right to have one ' s vote counted is of constitutional stature. As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes...” What Justice Stevens was attempting to convey was that Florida was correct in its efforts to count all ballots that showed who the voter was voting for. Justice Stevens goes on to state:
“In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent—and are therefore legal votes under state law—but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines... Thus, nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted. As the majority notes, "[a] desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.”
What Justice Stevens is attempting to suggest that in its actions, the majority of the Supreme Court is disenfranchising (preventing from having their vote count) voters by wishing a speedy end to case, even though United States code has a time limit that requires states to solve electoral controversy.
Another argument that Justice Stevens points out is “The Florida Supreme Court ...
did what courts do — it decided the case before it in light of the legislature ' s intent to leave no legally cast vote uncounted….. If we assume—as I do—that the members of that court and the judges who would have carried out its mandate are impartial, its decision does not even raise a colorable federal question.” With this Justice Stevens is saying is that the Florida Supreme Court is doing what it is supposed to do, upholding the laws that it is supposed to, morally and impartially, and that Federal intervention, through the Supreme Court, is not warranted. Justice Ginsburg supports Justice Stevens opinion: “… disagreement with the Florida court ' s interpretation of its own State ' s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the members of Florida ' s high court have done less than "their mortal best to discharge their oath of office," and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law...” Justice Breyer adds another opinion in this position: “Despite the reminder that this case involves "an election for the President of the United States," no preeminent legal concern, or practical concern related to legal questions, required this Court to hear this case, let alone to issue a stay that stopped Florida ' s recount process in its
tracks...”
Another argument that Justice Stevens presents is: “The endorsement of that position (that of the petitioners) 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.” Through this statement it is obvious that Justice Stevens believes that the Federal Courts has no place in interfering on state voter laws and that the decision that was made by the majority of US Supreme Court Justices will negatively influence the perception of the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens is supported by Justice Breyer: “…the Court is not acting to vindicate a fundamental constitutional principle, such as the need to protect a basic human liberty. No other strong reason to act is present. Congressional statutes tend to obviate the need. And, above all, in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public ' s confidence in the Court itself. That confidence is a public treasure. It has
been built slowly over many years, some of which were marked by a Civil War and the tragedy of segregation. It is a vitally necessary ingredient of any successful effort to protect basic liberty and, indeed, the rule of law itself... we risk a self-inflicted wound — a wound that may harm not just the Court, but the Nation...”

REFERENCES:
"http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/121200supreme_ruling.pdf." n.d. PBS.org. Document. 5 October 2012.