Recall Recalls 2000

Recall Recalls 2000

The tangled web that a narrow Supreme Court majority wove to shut down the Florida recount of presidential ballots in December 2000 made it possible for Republican George W.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

The tangled web that a narrow Supreme Court majority wove to shut down the Florida recount of presidential ballots in December 2000 made it possible for Republican George W. Bush to secure the presidency. But that precedent could make it impossible for California Republicans to game the system with a hastily scheduled recall of Democratic Governor Gray Davis. Though the High Court framed its decision in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case as a one-of-a-kind ruling, the majority opinion broke new legal ground in determining that the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which protects citizens from disparate treatment by state officials, can be applied to the methods states use to tally votes. It was on the basis of that interpretation that a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delayed California’s recall election.

California counties currently have different voting systems, and some of them still employ the flawed punch-card machines that denied the franchise to so many Floridians. The appeals court ruled that it would be unacceptable to allow the election to be held before key counties–several with large minority populations–carry out a planned replacement of the those machines, thus reducing the risk that ballots cast in those counties would be discarded at higher rates than in counties with better systems.

The panel’s ruling (which as we went to press faced a possible review by the full Ninth Circuit and potentially a Supreme Court review) points again to the desperate need for Congress to set ironclad standards for assuring that every vote counts and that every vote is counted. Until that happens, litigation will continue, voters will continue to be treated differently based on where they live, and the promise of American democracy will remain unfulfilled.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x