Judicial branch · Landmark case
Bush v. Gore
531 U.S. 98 (2000) · Per Curiam Opinion
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language.
The controlling document is the per curiam opinion. The case is expressly limited to its circumstances by the majority; its precedential scope remains contested.
The Court held that the Florida Supreme Court’s ordered manual recount violated the Equal Protection Clause because it lacked clear, consistent statewide standards for evaluating ballots, treating similarly situated voters differently. The Court further held that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the “safe harbor” deadline for appointment of electors. The practical effect was to end the recount and resolve the election in favor of George W. Bush.
Background
The 2000 presidential election turned on Florida’s electoral votes. After machine counts and legal challenges, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes. The Bush campaign sought relief in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court first stayed the recount, then heard argument on an extremely expedited schedule and issued its decision the next day.
Bush v.
Gore resolved a presidential election and remains one of the most consequential and controversial decisions in the Court’s history. It applied equal-protection principles to the mechanics of counting ballots and underscored the federal constitutional stakes of state election administration. The majority’s statement that the decision was limited to the present circumstances has limited its formal use as precedent, but the case continues to shape debates about election law and judicial role.
Vote and authorship
| Per curiam | Rehnquist, C.J., O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
|---|---|
| Concurrence | Rehnquist, C.J. (joined by Scalia, Thomas) |
| Dissent | Stevens, J. (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer); Souter, J. (joined in part by Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg); Ginsburg, J. (joined in part by Stevens); Breyer, J. (joined in part by Stevens, Ginsburg) |
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise.
Per curiam · Bush v. Gore
How it fits in government
Elections
Federal constitutional constraints on state ballot-counting procedures.
Equal protection
Uneven recount standards as a constitutional injury.
Judicial branch
Extraordinary intervention in a disputed presidential election.
Official records visitors may need
Related research paths
Baker v. Carr / Reynolds v. Sims
One-person-one-vote foundations
Elections and participation
Broader election-administration context
Equal protection
Vote-counting equality