531US1
98
Unit: $$U9
[05-01-02 10:02:37] PAGES PGT: OPIN
OCTOBER TERM, 2000
Syllabus
BUSH et al. v. GORE et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of florida
No. 00–949. Argued December 11, 2000—Decided December 12, 2000
On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered, inter alia, that
manual recounts of ballots for the recent Presidential election were
required in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not
been subject to manual tabulation, and that the manual recounts should
begin at once. Noting the closeness of the election, the court explained
that, on the record before it, there could be no question that there were
uncounted “legal votes”—i. e., those in which there was a clear indication of the voter’s intent—sufficient to place the results of the election
in doubt. Petitioners, the Republican candidates for President and Vice
President who had been certified as the winners in Florida, filed an
emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, this
Court granted the stay application, treated it as a petition for a writ of
certiorari, and granted certiorari.
Held: Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet 3 U. S. C.
§ 5’s December 12 “safe-harbor” date would be unconstitutional under
the Equal Protection Clause, the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment
ordering manual recounts is reversed. The Clause’s requirements
apply to the manner in which the voting franchise is exercised. Having
once granted the right to vote on equal terms, Florida may not, by
later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over
that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383
U. S. 663, 665. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to
the state court’s decision do not satisfy the minimum requirement for
nonarbitrary treatment of voters. The record shows that the standards
for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from
county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount
team to another. In addition, the recounts in three counties were
not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots.
Furthermore, the actual process by which the votes were to be counted
raises further concerns because the court’s order did not specify who
would recount the ballots. Where, as here, a court orders a statewide
remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary
requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.
The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this
point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance