Now that the 2000 presidential contest is finally over, let’s try to figure out how we reached the point where national elections are determined by a cadre of lawyers and judges. And more importantly, how we can restore the rule of law not only in elections but in all of American life.
For five long weeks after the election was–or should have been–concluded, the country was paralyzed by a flood of lawsuits challenging George W. Bush’s narrow victory in Florida. As teams of lawyers raced from one courtroom to another, the presidency was up in the air.
Then, following a unanimous remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, plus Judge Sanders Sauls’ rejection of Gore’s election contest, and unambiguous rulings from two circuit courts on the absentee ballot challenges in Seminole and Martin counties, the whole affair seemed on the brink of resolution.
Those hopes were dashed on December 8, when a sharply-divided Florida Supreme Court plunged the country further into confusion by a wholesale re-writing of the Florida election laws and an order to selectively hand count certain ballots, with no uniform standard on whether “dimpled chads” should be counted as votes. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the crisis when it stayed the recount on the next day, and issued its ruling in Bush v. Gore on December 12.