Did the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore establish a clear precedent?
The Supreme Court insisted that its ruling in 2000 in Bush v. Gore was not intended to establish a precedent for future election cases. The ruling hinged on concerns about the Florida Supreme Court's guidance on the state‘s recount. The U.S. Supreme Court said that its 2000 decision, which handed the presidency to George W. Bush, was “limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”
Despite that, “disagreements over whether Bush v. Gore should be considered a precedent are widespread, including in federal courts,” ProPublica wrote in November. Some lower courts have based decisions on it, but the Supreme Court itself has not. As the court did not hear any arguments on election cases arising from the November elections, the disagreement will continue.
