2000 Election Reading (2)

Facts learned from reading:
1. A minimalist generally says no more than necessary to decide a court case; this seems to limit actions and involvement of the judiciary in American government.
2. A subminimalist is someone who say less than what is required to justify a certain outcome.
3. The majority of the 2000 Supreme Court were conservative justices.
4. The Supreme Court justices voted 5-4 to resolve  the presidential election, not by unanimously voting.
5. President Bush argued that the manual recount violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because there were no cleat standards to ensure equal treatment for the situated people.
6. On December 9, Florida's Supreme Court ruled, with a 4-3 vote, that a manual recount was required by state law; this made it unclear whether Bush or Gore would win.
7. During the 2000 election, William Rehnquist was the Chief Justice.
8. Five members of the Court accepted the equal protection argument (should count dimpled chads).

Post reading questions:
1. Why would the Supreme Court minimize their voice of a case (be minimalist or subminimalist) and how could they get away with doing this?
2. If a situation like this occurred again, would the federal government regulate the voting system/ use the same method to vote, to standardize the voting process?
3. Because this situation does not occur often, would their decision be used as a precedent in the future?
4. Were other states affected by this as well, or only the state of Florida and the federal government?
5. Is there any way to successfully count every vote during an election?