Were There Adequate State Grounds in Bush V. Gore?

By Wells, Michael L. | Constitutional Commentary, Summer 2001 | Go to article overview

Were There Adequate State Grounds in Bush V. Gore?


Wells, Michael L., Constitutional Commentary


Few Supreme Court decisions provoke the immediate and intensely negative verdict that law professors passed on Bush v. Gore. (1) It usually takes some time for scholars to digest the opinions, reflect on the majority's reasoning, and render considered judgments. Not so in this case. Within a few days of the 5-4 ruling that halted the recounting of votes for presidential electors in Florida, the decision drew withering criticism from scholars across the ideological spectrum. Akhil Amar lamented in the Los Angeles Times that he must now tell his students not to put their trust in judges, even though he considers himself "a friend of the U.S. Supreme Court and of many of its current justices"; (2) Jeffrey Rosen called the decision a "disgrace" on the cover of the New Republic; (3) and Herman Schwartz accused the Court of "trampl[ing] on ... [b]asic principles of adjudication." (4)

Some of the criticism is deserved. (5) Professor Amar made a powerful case against the majority's ruling that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the equal protection clause for failure to use uniform standards throughout the state. Amar pointed out that vote counting standards vary from locality to locality all over the nation, that they always have, and that the Court could cite no precedent to support its equal protection theory. Others have questioned whether the ruling rests on any general principle at all, given the care the Court took to limit its reasoning to the extraordinary circumstances of the Florida presidential election. (6) Even Michael McConnell, a well-known conservative scholar, was troubled by the implications of the holding. By reaching the equal protection issue, the Court evidently accepted the notion that recounts were appropriate in connection with the election contest. Yet the Court put a stop to the recount that was underway. McConnell observed that "[t]he court did not have the resolution to declare that no recount was necessary, or the patience to declare that a proper recount should proceed." (7)

It is all too easy to leap from this well-founded critique of the Court's reasoning to the conclusion that the majority--all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents--were bent on installing George W. Bush in the White House by any means they could find, and that the holding rests not at all on law but solely on naked politics. (8) Putting aside the majority's reasoning, a better ground on which to defend Bush is that the Florida Supreme Court (the "Florida Court") violated article II, [section] 1, clause 2 of the Constitution, which provides that "[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, [presidential] electors." (9) In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas (the "plurality"), advanced an argument along these lines, and the four dissenters devoted parts of their opinions to refuting it. Though the plurality grasped the basic issue in Bush, it did not make the best case for reversal. The dissenters understandably responded only to the plurality's weak arguments and not the stronger ones that should have been marshaled for reversal.

The Chief Justice was right to be concerned about article II, but committed a critical error in his treatment of the "adequate and independent state ground" doctrine. The plurality was confronted with a state court opinion that did not purport to rely on federal law. If we leave equal protection out of the analysis (as I do throughout the remainder of this article), the threshold question is how one justifies the Court's exercise of jurisdiction, for state courts are sovereign over matters of state law. The general rule is that the Supreme Court may review a case from a state court unless the state court judgment rests on an adequate and independent state ground. The plurality rightly found that, despite the Florida Court's failure to address federal article II issues, there was not an adequate state ground here. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Were There Adequate State Grounds in Bush V. Gore?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.