The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election

by Howard Gillman

Overview

The struggle over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election inspired countless books, most of them hasty political critiques. However, with this book, Howard Gillman had different aims from the beginning: to create a lasting, authoritative document of the 36 days between the election and its legal resolution, to offer an accessible overview of the legal strategies and debates, and to assess the influence of politics and law on the judges who shaped the outcome of this historical controversy.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780226294087
Publisher:	University of Chicago Press
Publication date:	07/05/2003
Edition description:	1
Pages:	325
Product dimensions:	6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.90(d)

About the Author

Howard Gillman is a professor of political science and law at the University of Southern California. He is the author of The Constitution Besieged, winner of the Pritchett Award for best book in public law, and editor (with Cornell Clayton) of Supreme Court Decision-Making, also published by the University of Chicago Press.

Table of Contents

Preface
Acknowledgments
Chronology of Events
Introduction: Courts and the Political Challenge of Election 2000
1. Who Won? The Election Goes to Court
2. Changing the Rules? The Florida Supreme Court, Round One
3. A Shot across the Bow: The U.S. Supreme Court Enters the Fray
4. Gore's Last Chance: The Florida Supreme Court, Round Two
5. The Dam Breaks: Five Justices Pick a President
6. The Politics behind the Votes That Counted
Appendixes
A. Provisions of the U.S. Constitution Relating to Election 2000 Litigation
B. Provisions of Federal Statutory Law Relating to Election 2000 Litigation
C. Provisions of Florida Election Law Relating to Election 2000 Litigation
D. Highlights of Major Cases in the 2000 Presidential Election Dispute
Notes
Selected Bibliography
Table of Cases
Index

Editorial Reviews

University of Southern California political science professor Gillman (The Constitution Besieged) provides a compact examination followed by careful analysis of the major court actions in the contested aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. His analysis gives equal time to expectations of the moment as well as the longer, more stable perspective of the law, with attention to legal briefs, oral arguments, commentary and final decisions. This close attention to texts of all sides minimizes partisan rationalizations and political spin that filled the media at the time. Each chapter covers a different level of the judicial process, from the first 10 days of initial recount efforts, the first Florida Supreme Court case and the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention to Judge N. Sanders Sauls's trial court, the Florida Supreme Court again and the U.S. Supreme Court's stay and final decision. Significant side suits are covered chronologically, most notably those challenging absentee ballot irregularities and federal cases heard by the 11th Circuit C0urt of Appeals. The final chapter employs a clear, consistent framework to assess the integrity of the judges and justices. Gillman shows that the three unanimous decisions against Gore by the Florida Supreme Court followed established precedent and ruled consistently to include all plausible votes; meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court majority's decision emerges from this careful examination as arbitrary, capricious and partisan. Gillman's developmental framework should provide an valuable comparison with more argumentative books. (Oct.) Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.

Publishers Weekly

The idea of the judiciary as an impartial guardian of the law receives substantial criticism in Gillman's analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision, which resolved the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Gillman (political science, Univ. of Southern California), the author of several award-winning books on the U.S. Constitution, such as The Constitution Besieged, carefully explains how both Florida state court judges and federal judges fundamentally shaped the postelection dispute through law and judicial politics. Gillman finds that some forms of judicial politics had the illegitimate influence of partisan favoritism, while others were acceptable, although controversial, forms of judicial authority. Gillman's excellent analysis carefully examines the nature of U.S. judicial institutions within a democratic framework and raises the question whether the Bush v. Gore decision will have lasting effects on the reputation and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida courts. This highly recommended book will help citizens understand key implications of this case and will be a welcome addition to all public and academic libraries. Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ. Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.

Library Journal