martin gov
pptx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Central Florida *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
C121
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
pptx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MagistrateRookMaster3467
Bush v. Gore
By Bryson, Martin, and Jacob
Overview
•
The main constituents were
- George W. Bush: Republican
presidential candidate
- Al Gore: Democratic
presidential candidate
•
This case happened in December
2000, it was incited in Florida
and tried in the Supreme Court
in Washington D.C.
Court Case Story
•
Description:
•
The controversy was centered around the
recounting of Floridian votes and weather
the recounting methods in place were
consistent and constitutionally fair.
•
Amendment violated?
•
The 14
th
amendment was the key focus of
the case. It was argued that the
recounting methods used, were not
consistent across counties and therefore
violated the Equal Protection Clause of
the Amendment.
•
The Verdict:
•
In a 5-4 decision, the court
ruled in favor of Bush,
therefore ending the recount
in Florida. The majority
opinion was that the counties’
varying methods used for
recounting were unequal and
violated the protection clause
of the 14
th
amendment.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Significance
•
Why the Court heard the case:
•
The court heard the case because the
recounting policies of Florida raised
constitutional concerns and had
presidential implications.
•
What precedent it set:
•
This case changed the tone of the Court,
rather than following tradition and
deferring to the State’s decision, the Court
overturned the States authority. Therefore,
setting a precedent of highlighting the
importance of consistent vote counting
standards.
•
Is this case important:
•
Historically this case is highly controversial
and significant, since it determined the 2000
presidential election. It brought change to the
Supreme Court by shifting the precedent from
deferring to the states in election disputes, to
interfering in the electoral process.
•
What we think:
•
While the case did decide the 2000
Presidential candidate, it is not an issue that
frequently comes up and the precedent it set
did not directly lead to many drastically
visible differences.