I'm sick of people saying that "Bush stole the election" or "the Supreme Court appointed Bush." There are several cases which resulted in George W. Bush winning Florida's 25 electoral votes. The first case is George W. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), from December 8, 2000. The second is Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), from December 12, 2000.

On November 7, 2000, lots of people from across the country voted. Not as many as we'd like, but that's an issue for another day. In the state of Florida, George W. Bush received 2,909,135 votes, and Al Gore received 2,907,351 votes. The margin of victory for Bush was 1,784 votes, which was "equal to or less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast." As a result, Fla. Stat. §102.141(4) was triggered, which required a machine recount of all votes cast if such a scenario occurred. The machine recount of all the votes resulted in Bush still winning, but by a smaller margin. Florida's election law allows a candidate to contest the results of an election if "[r]eceipt 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." Gore contended that votes were incorrectly tabulated in four counties, and sought a manual hand recount in those counties. Ultimately, his case went to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed his contest in only one county, Miami-Dade County, where it had failed "to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President ('undervotes')." Given the closeness of the election, the Florida Supreme Court observed that "there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt." Thus Gore's manual hand recount in Miami-Dade County was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

Also at issue was the date set for certification of votes. Florida state law requires votes to be certified within seven days of an election, but the recount process was not complete by then. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Secretary of State "could exercise her discretion in deciding whether to include the late amended returns in the statewide certification." The Secretary of State then responded that any county could apply to submit late results by filing a written statement by 2 PM on November 15. Four counties submitted such applications, and the Secretary of State denied them all. Gore filed a motion in state court on November 16 "arguing that the Secretary had acted arbitrarily and in contempt of the court's earlier ruling." This was appealed up to the Florida Supreme Court, which issued a stay on certifyelection results certification until it said so. On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court issued its ruling, which, in part, "imposed a deadline of November 26 at 5 PM for a return of ballot counts." Bush appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in turn ruled on December 8 "that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision." The Florida Supreme Court, it said, misinterpreted the Florida State Constitution and may have violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution by changing the rules for the election after the election had taken place. Seeking a better answer, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Florida Supreme Court decision and remanded it for further proceedings. It didn't believe that altering the rules for the election after the election had occurred was quite fair.

Finally, on December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue once and for all. The case presented the following questions: "[W]hether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. §5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses." At issue was the standard for the manual recount. The U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter "Supreme Court" or "Court") found that there was no state standard for manual recounts (e.g. what kind of "chad" counts as a vote? These opinions differed from county to county):

The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida's basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the "intent of the voter." Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d, at 1262. This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.

The Supreme Court found that, since there was no statewide standard for manual recounts, and it is the sole responsibility of the state legislature to specify the method by which voters shall be tabulated, the manual recounts violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court's opinion was reversed, and the case was remanded "for further proceedings."

So, did the Supreme Court "appoint" Bush? Did Bush "steal" the election? Regarding the first question, it's hard to say. Bush v. Gore was decided 5-4, with Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg dissenting. Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas were all nominated by Republican presidents, while Breyer and Ginsburg were nominated by Bill Clinton. This is not a case of justices playing the party line. Although, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas tend to be the most conservative members of the Court (speaking of ideology, not party affiliation), while Souter and Ginsburg tend to be the most liberal. "Conservative" in this case means sticking to the letter of the law, not speaking in abstracts or ideals. If the law doesn't say it, then it ain't legal. In contrast, "liberal" means appealing to a notion of Justice with a capital "J," ignoring what the law may say and instead focusing on what the spirit of the law is. The justices have different views on how the law should be interpreted, but these views in themselves cannot be seen as favor for one candidate or the other. Thus I fail to see how the Supreme Court "appointed" Bush, especially given that it reversed the Florida Supreme Court's opinion. It did not declare Bush the winner: that is the job of the Electoral College (although the argument is that, in dismissing the validity of the Florida Court's opinion, which favored Gore, the Court allowed Bush to win the popular vote in Florida, which gained him Florida's electoral votes, which won him the election).

Did Bush "steal" the election? No; how could he do that? He didn't bribe the justices, he didn't extort things from them. People who espouse this opinion of "stealing" don't back up their claim with an explanation of how he stole the election. Is it because he lost the nationwide popular vote but won the electoral votes? That's a flaw in the system, perhaps, but the fault cannot be uniquely attributed to Bush.

Ultimately, fault rests with the state of Florida for not establishing a uniform system of counting ballots. Secretary of State Katherine Harris, whose duty it is to oversee elections, is particularly responsible. Also, the outdated voting systems being used were also culpable in the Election 2000 fiasco, as the Court noted in its opinion. Bush himself, however, or the Supreme Court cannot be held responsible. The facts do not support assertions that the Supreme Court "appointed" him or that he "stole" the election.