# data[].attributes.body
Political Cartoon illustrating the question of individual votes and the electoral college votes. Why do the votes in one state decide the national outcome?

# data[].attributes.body
Bush v. Gore effectively decided a presidential election, making it one of the most controversial cases in U.S. history.

It raised questions about the role of the judiciary in elections and equal protection in voting procedures.

The ruling emphasized that inconsistent voting standards can be unconstitutional, but paradoxically, the Court also said this ruling should not be treated as precedent, limiting its future use.

The case increased public scrutiny of election systems, leading to reforms like the Help America Vote Act (2002) to improve voting technology and ballot clarity.

# data[].attributes.body
The four dissenting justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter) believed the recount should continue. They argued that the right to vote and have one’s vote counted fairly outweighed any procedural concerns. They also criticized the majority for intervening in a state-level electoral process, suggesting it undermined public confidence in the judicial system and the election itself.

Justice Stevens famously wrote:

“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.”

# data[].attributes.body
The majority held that the manual recounts lacked consistent standards, meaning that votes were not being counted equally across counties. This violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court also ruled that there was not enough time to establish uniform recount standards before the deadline for selecting electors.

Importantly, the Court stated the decision was limited to this case only and should not be used as a precedent in future election disputes.

# data[].attributes.body
George W. Bush won. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to stop the Florida recount, effectively awarding the presidency to Bush.

# data[].attributes.body
Did the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow manual recounts in certain counties violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
The 2000 U.S. presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was extremely close. The outcome hinged on the state of Florida, where the vote margin was so narrow it triggered an automatic machine recount. The Gore campaign requested a manual recount in four counties, citing voting irregularities such as unclear ballots (like "hanging chads").

The Florida Supreme Court ordered the continuation of manual recounts. The Bush campaign appealed, arguing that different counties were using different standards for counting votes, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The case quickly moved to the U.S. Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
Equal Protection Clause

14th Amendment: “No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Equal Protection Clause requires that state and local governments treat all people equally. It doesn’t mean the government has to treat everyone identically, but it cannot discriminate unfairly or arbitrarily.

Importance:

It's the basis for many major civil rights decisions.

It has been used to strike down laws or practices that discriminate based on race, gender, citizenship status, and more.

It ensures that people in similar situations are treated the same by the law, unless the government has a very good reason to treat them differently.