## Facts

- The 2000 presidential election in Florida produced an extremely close vote margin between George W. Bush and Albert Gore, Jr., triggering an automatic machine recount under Florida law.
- Gore sought manual recounts in selected Florida counties under state election protest procedures, leading to litigation over recount methods and deadlines.
- The Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts to begin immediately in counties where “undervotes” had not been manually tabulated, reasoning that ballots showing clear voter intent could affect the outcome.
- Bush sought emergency relief in the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Florida Supreme Court’s recount order and granted certiorari on an expedited basis.

## Issues

1. Whether the statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, using varying standards for determining voter intent, violated the Equal Protection Clause by producing arbitrary and disparate treatment of votes.
2. Whether, given timing constraints and Florida’s reliance on the federal “safe harbor” date under 3 U.S.C. § 5, a constitutionally valid recount could be completed in time to provide a lawful remedy.
3. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of Florida election law departed from the state legislature’s scheme for appointing presidential electors in violation of Article II, § 1, cl. 2.

## Decision

- The Court (per curiam, 5–4) held that the recount procedures ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause because they lacked uniform standards ensuring consistent treatment of ballots statewide.
- The Court found that recount teams and counties applied differing and shifting criteria (including on punch-card ballots with “hanging,” “dimpled,” or similar markings), risking unequal valuation of identical ballots.
- The Court concluded that implementing constitutionally adequate, uniform recount standards would require additional work that could not be completed by the December 12 safe-harbor deadline.
- The Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment ordering the manual recounts, effectively leaving in place Florida’s existing certification of electors.
- A separate concurrence would also have set aside the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on Article II grounds, reasoning that the state court altered the legislature’s rules for choosing electors.
- Dissents generally argued that the recount should not have been terminated and that any equal protection defect should have been cured through a remand for uniform counting standards.

## Legal Principles

- Once a state grants the right to vote, it may not administer vote counting through arbitrary and disparate treatment that results in unequal valuation of votes under the Equal Protection Clause.
- Equal protection constraints apply to the manner of counting ballots and tabulating results, not only to formal access to the ballot.
- A statewide recount remedy requires at least minimal, uniform standards and administrative safeguards to ensure equal treatment in evaluating ballots.
- When a court-ordered recount lacks uniform standards and cannot be corrected within the time available for the state’s chosen federal safe-harbor timetable, a court may conclude that no timely constitutionally valid recount remedy exists on that schedule.
- The Court stated its equal protection analysis was confined to the specific circumstances of the case.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court ended Florida’s court-ordered recount because the absence of uniform standards for counting ballots violated equal protection, and it determined that a constitutionally adequate recount could not be completed by the applicable safe-harbor deadline, leaving the existing certification in place.


Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)