Bush v. Gore

531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bush v. Gore

United States Supreme Court
531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000)

Play video


In the presidential election of 2000, voters in Florida cast their votes on machines designed to record votes made by a stylus on a punchcard. The voter was supposed to punch a hole in the card next to the name of the voter's preferred candidate. However, in some cases, a piece of the card was left hanging (a hanging chad) or was merely indented (a dimpled chad), rather than a clean hole punched. On the day after the election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that George W. Bush (plaintiff) was leading in the vote tally over Albert Gore (defendant), but the narrow margin of Bush's lead triggered an automatic machine recount of the votes under the Florida Election Code. The counting machines automatically rejected any ballots that they could not read, including ballots with hanging or dimpled chads. These ballots were known as "undervotes." The machines also rejected "overvote" ballots, on which more than one hole was punched for the same office. After the machine recount, Bush still led in the vote, but his margin of victory had decreased. Gore then sought manual recounts in four counties. On November 26, 2000, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush. Gore then filed a complaint under a Florida Statute that provided for a contest of election results when there was “receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.” The trial court rejected Gore's challenge and held that Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. However, the Supreme Court of Florida held that Gore had met his burden of proof on some of his challenges, including his challenge to Miami-Dade County's failure to manually recount 9,000 undervote ballots. The court said that there were legal votes within those 9,000 ballots, and this placed the election results in doubt. The court defined a "legal vote" as one with a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." The court thus ordered, among other things, a manual recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County and an additional manual recount of all undervote ballots in all Florida counties in which those ballots had not been subject to manual tabulation. The job of the canvassers conducting the manual recounts was to determine a voter's intent by examining the face of the ballot. However, there were no uniform guidelines for assessing the ballots. Shortly after the manual recounts began, Bush requested that the United States Supreme Court grant a stay of the mandate ordering the recount. The Supreme Court granted a stay, treated Bush's request as a petition for certiorari, and granted certiorari.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)

Concurrence (Rehnquist, C.J.)

Dissent (Breyer, J.)

Dissent (Souter, J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership