60 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (2007-2008)
The Untimely Death of Bush v. Gore

handle is hein.journals/stflr60 and id is 9 raw text is: ARTICLES
THE UNTIMELY DEATH OF BUSH V. GopE
Richard L. Hasen*
INTRO D U CTIO N  ...................................................................................................... .2
I. BUSH V. GORE'S FAILURE TO IGNITE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION REFORM
T HRO UG H  L ITIG ATIO N  .......................................................................................... 6
I1. THE RISE OF PARTISAN ELECTION ADMINISTRATION LAWS AND THE
TROUBLING  PUBLIC  CONFIDENCE GAP ............................................................ 15
I11. MISLEARNING THE LESSONS OF BUSH V. GORE: THE SUPREME COURT'S
POOR RESPONSE IN PURCELL V. GONZALEZ TO THE RISE OF ELECTION LAW
AS  A  POLITICAL  STRATEGY  .............................................................................. 28
A. The Decision to Quickly Issue an Opinion in the Case ............................ 33
B. The Court's Endorsement of a Wholly Unsupported Empirical Claim
that Threatens Equal Protection Rights in Election Administration
C ases  ...................................................................................................... . .  3 5
C. The Court's Unnecessarily Broad Discouragement of Pre-Election
L itig a tion  ............................................................................................... . .  37
D . The  Ram ifications  ...................................................................................   38
C O N C LU SIO N   ............................................................................................................ 4 3
* William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los
Angeles. Thanks to Bob Bauer, Adam Cox, Chris Elmendorf, Alec Ewald, Ned Foley, Chad
Flanders, Heather Gerken, Sam  Issacharoff, Justin Levitt, Dan Lowenstein, Luke
McLoughlin, Lori Minnite, Rick Pildes, Michael Solimine, Roy Schotland, Dan Tokaji, and
Tova Wang for useful comments and suggestions.
Shortly before this Article went to press, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the
consolidated Indiana voter identification appeals described in detail in Part III.D. Crawford
v. Marion County Election Bd., No. 07-21, 2007 WL 1999941 (Sept. 25, 2007); Indiana
Dem. Party v. Rokita, No. 07-25, 2007 WL 1999963 (Sept. 25, 2007). A few days before the
announcement I published an op-ed in the Washington Post setting forth why I thought the
Court should hear the case. See Richard L. Hasen, A Voting Test for the High Court, WASH.
POST, Sept. 19, 2007, at A23, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801572.html. The Court will hear the argument
in early 2008 and likely issue an opinion before the 2008 presidential election. The Court
will have a chance to reconsider its position in the Purcell case and perhaps avoid the
partisan divide that has plagued the courts and other institutions since Bush v. Gore, 531
U.S. 98 (2000).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?