2000 Election: Handout Issue 7 part 2

Facts:

1. The Supreme Court intervened in the election four times.
2. Katherine Harris made the deadline for the recount Nov. 14, 2000, while the electors did not meet until the 16th of Dec.
3. Because of the absence of standards the Supreme Court deemed the manual recount unlawful.
4. Bush suggested to the court that because of the different standards it is impossible to recount with out the equal protection clause being broken.
5. Sunstein thinks that the Supreme Court should not intervene in electoral controversy.
6. Sunstein viewed the Supreme Court's decision as to minimal to decide the controversy
7. The Court's decision lack precedent.
8. Each county in Florida had different counting systems, in the case of the poorer counties their vote counting machines were lower quality than the richer counties, thus the equal protection clause could have been violated.

Post Reading Questions:

1. As a civilian would you be able to sue the state if you had proof that you were exempt from the vote or your vote was incorrectly represented?
2. Where would a future court stand on a matter similar to this would they use precedent or would they ignore the obviously confused court's precedent?
3. What would Bush say to the use of voters intent, because of his decision in his own state (also disregarding state legislature)?
4. Are the remedies that Sunstein proposed realistic or are they only hopeful?
5. Looking back would the court decide differently even though it was only supposed to be a decision based on law?