Bush v. Gore

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Constitutional Law

531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionPresidential ElectionsRecountsEqual Protection Clausevote dilutionarbitrary and disparate treatmentstatewide recount

Facts

Following Florida's presidential election, the certified margin between Bush and Gore was extremely close, and disputes arose over manual recounts of ballots on which machines had not detected a vote for President. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a hand recount of 9,000 Miami-Dade undervotes, directed inclusion of certain manually identified vote gains for Gore from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, and held that manual recounts should proceed in all counties where undervotes had not been manually tabulated. The Florida court used the standard that a legal vote is one showing a clear indication of the intent of the voter. The recounts, however, were being conducted under varying standards among counties and even within counties, and the Florida order also permitted inclusion of partial recount totals.

Issue

Whether the manual recount procedures ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause because they lacked uniform standards and permitted arbitrary and disparate treatment of voters' ballots. Also presented were Article II and 3 U.S.C. § 5 questions, but the Court resolved the case on equal protection grounds.

Rule

Once a State grants the right to vote for President on equal terms, it may not later, through arbitrary and disparate treatment in counting ballots, value one person's vote over another. In a statewide recount ordered by a court with authority to ensure uniformity, there must be at least minimum procedural safeguards, including uniform standards for determining what counts as a legal vote, sufficient to secure equal treatment and fundamental fairness.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a razor-thin presidential vote in Ohio, the state supreme court orders a statewide hand recount of undervotes. The court instructs every county to count any ballot showing the "intent of the voter," but gives no further guidance, and county boards adopt different approaches to partially detached punch marks and faint pen ovals.

Which is the strongest constitutional objection to the recount order?

Explanation. Once a State grants the right to vote for President on equal terms, it may not later value one person's vote over another through arbitrary and disparate treatment in counting ballots. The majority held that an abstract "intent of the voter" principle is unobjectionable as a starting point, but insufficient by itself in a statewide recount unless accompanied by specific standards ensuring equal application.