Bush v. Gore | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Why was the presidential election of 2000 so controversial, and what constitutional questions were raised during the vote count? This Homework Help video explores these questions to help students understand the fundamental issues at hand in the case of Bush v. Gore.
0:00 What do a close presidential election race. And the Equal Protection Clause have in common? Our democracy is no stranger to political division, and the 1990s were no exception. Tensions between a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic President Bill bill Clinton were high. In 1998, president Clinton was impeached and narrowly avoided being removed from office.
0:22 This impeachment set the stage for what was sure to be a contentious presidential election in 2000. Bill Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore, a veteran politician from Tennessee, ran as the Democratic nominee. Texas Governor George W. Bush, son of former President George H. W. Bush, ran on the Republican ticket. After election night, the vote count was extremely close.
0:44 The aftermath would raise an important constitutional question what is the role of the Supreme Court in resolving political disputes? This is the case of Bush v. Gore.
1:06 From the year 2000. Many computers will assume zero. Live from our election headquarters in New York. If you take away Florida, all bets are off. On November 7, 2000, Americans went to the polls to cast their ballots for the next president. The United States has what’s called an electoral college.
1:29 This means that each state is assigned. A number of electors based on their. Number of representatives and senators. Whichever candidate receives the most votes within each state wins the state’s popular vote. Practically speaking, this determines the winner of. That state’s electorate who will go on to cast ballots for the candidates to which state were pledged. Candidates need to win at least 270
1:51 of the 538 electoral votes in order to become president. On election night, Al Gore held a small electoral lead over George W. Bush before all the state’s voted. Results were in. The election would come down to one state: Florida. Whoever won Florida’s 25 electoral votes would become the next president.
2:11 The vote was very close too close to call. Out of nearly 6 million votes that. Were cast in the state, bush was initially winning by a margin of only 1784 votes. However, Florida law required a statewide machine. Recount when the margin of victory was. One half of 1% or less. During the recount, Bush’s lead shrunk to only 327 votes.
2:35 Gore then demanded that ballots in four heavily Democratic counties be recounted by hand, a recount which Florida law required to be finished in one week. To make matters even more confusing, two conflicting laws stated that the Florida Secretary of State both may and shall ignore late counts beyond the one week deadline.
2:56 May? Shall? Those are pretty different directives. So which was it? At the time, Florida’s incumbent secretary of. State was Catherine Harris, a Republican who also served on Bush’s campaign team. She announced that she would not accept recounted votes that came in after the deadline. However, in a seven to zero ruling, the Florida Supreme Court ordered Harris
3:19 to continue the recount until November 26, two weeks past the original deadlines. Yet after the deadline passed, some votets have still not been recounted, and Bush still remained in the lead. Harris prepared to certify Bush as the winner of Florida. By winning the state, he would become the next president. However, Gore again challenged the results of the election in Florida and requested
3:42 that the Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount of 9000 contested votes in Miami Dade County, as well as a statewide manual recount of undervotes. The Court granted this request to Gore in a four to three vote and blocked Harris’s certification. Bush and his legal team immediately challenged this decision by appealing to the United States Supreme Court,
4:04 who halted the recount and agreed to hear the case. Bush’s legal team argued that the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling calling for a statewide recount violated the equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They contended that not all votes would be counted equally because each county had different laws regarding a recount. Gore’s team countered that there was
4:25 a uniform recounting method that would provide equality to all those. So how would the high court rule did the Florida Supreme Court exceed its authority? By ordering a statewide manual recount of undervotes and would such a recount be constitutional? The Justices released two different decisions. In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled by a count of seven to two
4:48 that the Florida method of recounting ballots. Was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court was more divided over what the remedy should be. In a five to four decision, it ruled that there was not enough time to complete a constitutionally sound recount. The majority stated, upon due consideration of the difficulties
5:08 identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. Not all the Justices were convinced. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued the majority was making an untested prophecy when it claimed that a new legal process could not be adopted before
5:30 December 29, when Congress would ratify the Electoral College vote. In a separate dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority violated the principle of federalism. He wrote The Constitution assigned to the states the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the presidential electorate. When questions arise about the meaning
5:52 of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the state as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statute or the federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.
6:12 After the decision, Al Gore conceded the election, and George W. Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd President of the United States on January 21. The Supreme Court had been thrust into a hotly, contentious and partisan situation and ultimately played a major role in shaping the results of the election. In the aftermath of the case, debates continue whether the Supreme Court
6:36 should be involved directly in political processes? Will the Court become involved again in the political question involving solving the Equal Protection clause. This was the case of Bush v. Gore. If you want more homework help, be sure to like this video and subscribe to our channel. We’ll see you in the next one.
