Bush v. Gore

In the circumstances of the case violates any manual recount of the votes within the prescribed period against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Part II ( 5:4 ): Rehnquist (Chair), O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas

Part II: Stevens, Ginsburg

The United States Constitution, 14th Amendment

Bush v. Gore ( full George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. ) Was a court case that was heard in the Supreme Court of the United States. He attracted enormous public attention in the United States because the final judgment of 12 December 2000, the presidential election was decided in the United States in 2000 in favor of Republican George W. Bush. It was the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that he immediately decided a presidential election with his judgment.

The legally complex judgment came mainly on criticism and weakened the prestige of the court.

Starting position

On 8 November 2000, the Electoral Commission of the State of Florida announced the election results of the 2000 presidential election. There was such a narrow lead for Bush that the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board by counting the votes again. She showed an improved in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore result. He then demanded that hand counts were carried out in four other counties. An appeal against the extradition was rejected by the Federal District Court on November 13.

The specified date for the submission of repeatedly counted votes was so closely sized to the Supreme Court of Florida was forced on 21 November 2000 to postpone the deadline on November 26.

First decision of the Supreme Court of 4 December 2000

On 4 December 2000, the Supreme Court had unexpectedly unanimously to appeal the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida violated the constitutional principle that election statutes should not be changed during an ongoing election process. His responsibility, he established the fact that we are dealing with the election of the U.S. President and the U.S. Constitution to the statutory regulation of Elektorenwahl authorize the legislature of the several States. Because the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida thus could violate the separation of powers principle, it was to be justified in this respect precisely of the judiciary. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and pointed it to the Supreme Court of Florida Return to the reassessment.

Second judgment of the Supreme Court from December 9, 2000

Just one day after the Supreme Court of Florida had arranged another hand counts on 8 December 2000, the Supreme Court decreed a temporary suspension of the recount. The preliminary stop justified the court order, there is a reasonable probability, according to which the pending appeal will be successful. Another counting could cause irreparable prejudice to the applicant George W. Bush et al. cause and the USA, led from Justice Scalia.

Third judgment of the Supreme Court of 12 December 2000

In his detailed decision of 12 December 2000, the Supreme Court dismissed the decision to hand counts controversial votes on the Supreme Court of Florida back. At the same time, the court found for hand counts the time had expired.

With a majority of seven to two, the court found that those prescribed by the Supreme Court of Florida hand counts of over 60,000 machine unrecognized ballots are constitutionally problematic. Mainly, it criticized that there are no uniform standards for giving in the various districts of the state of Florida, as the disputed votes to be evaluated. Thus, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment had been infringed Article in an unconstitutional manner.

Next, the court decided by a narrow five- to-four majority, that within the period prescribed constitutionally compliant recount no longer be able to be guaranteed until 12 December 2000. Since it was clear that any up to this point is contrary lockable recount against the Constitution, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida was not acceptable. It should be recast in accordance with the principles set out by the Supreme Court.

From the minority voted for two judges to continue to run as started the ordered recount. Although two judges shared the majority opinion to the effect that the ongoing recount not expire correctly. But you wanted to reject the case to the Supreme Court of Florida. He should set uniform standards for the recount, usually with the extension of the deadline.

In two separate minority opinions and the other four judges considered on the one hand, however, that the intervention of the Federal Court on the powers of the individual states to make the election process and perform not sufficiently weighty reasons had been substantiated. The Court should respect these differences in opinion, the member states competence and not to accept for review the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. On the other hand, the period for determination of the electors would be interpreted in an unauthorized manner, so, so that the voices of thousands of voters could not be considered.

The Court was divided in its view. The common per curiam decision of the seven to two majority included 13 of the 65 pages of the pleading. The remaining versions contained the dissenting opinions of individual judges. The judgment held along the famous ideological boundary line within the Court. With the conservative group of William H. Rehnquist ( Chief Justice ), Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted out of the moderate camp Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. David Souter joined the liberal group that Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens included.