How the Supreme Court Decided the 2000 Election | Bush v. Gore

The 2000 U.S. presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was one of the closest in history, with Florida's votes being crucial. Initial machine recounts showed Bush leading by a narrow margin, prompting Gore to request manual recounts in select counties. Legal battles ensued over recount deadlines and procedures, leading to the Florida Supreme Court's involvement. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately intervened, halting the recounts and awarding Florida's electoral votes to Bush, who became the 43rd president. The decision was controversial, raising issues of judicial activism and equal protection under the law.

What was the initial margin of votes that led to a machine recount in Florida during the 2000 election?

• 1,784 votes

• 327 votes

• 537 votes

• 6,000,000 votes

Which counties did Al Gore choose for a manual recount?

• Orange, Seminole, Broward, and Miami-Dade

• Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Volusia, and Orange

• Broward, Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Palm Beach

• Miami-Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, and Seminole

What was the new deadline set by the Florida Supreme Court for completing the recounts?

• November 26th

• December 8th

• November 21st

• November 14th

What constitutional clause did Bush argue was violated by the recounts?

• The Commerce Clause

• The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

• The First Amendment

• The Supremacy Clause

What was the final decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the recount?

• They sided with Gore

• They sided with Bush

• They declared the election invalid

• They ordered a statewide recount

Which Justice dissented in the Bush v. Gore decision, expressing concern over the impartiality of the judiciary?

• Justice Clarence Thomas

• Justice John Paul Stevens

• Justice Antonin Scalia

• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

What was a major criticism of the Bush v. Gore decision?

• It was considered a victory for federalism

• It was viewed as a non-controversial decision

• It was praised for upholding states' rights

• It was seen as an example of judicial activism