{"id":49877,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/2000-elections-page-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"2000-elections-page-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/2000-elections-page-2.html","title":{"rendered":"2000 Elections Page 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Special Coverage: 2000 Elections Page 2<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

\nELECTION 2000 FORUM<\/span>\n
\n\"Election\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0 Browse Titles (by date)<\/u><\/font><\/a><\/td>\nBrowse Authors<\/u><\/font><\/a>\u00a0 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>
\n\n\n\n\nCRAIG J. ALBERT<\/a>\n
\nTHE COMING WARS IN (NAME YOUR STATE)<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw contributor and Seton Hall law professor Craig Albert extrapolates from James Baker’s, and the Florida \nlegislature’s, suggestion that state legislatures can disregard their state’s election results when appointing electors. \nIf taken seriously, Professor Albert suggests, this could lead to a nationwide chain reaction that would pit state legislators \nagainst their own citizens or governors. In the end, might could make right — for the pivotal vote might be Jesse Ventura.\n
\n<\/span>\nSaturday, Dec. 02, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\n\nHOW TO END THE ELECTION STALEMATE? WITH A BUSH-LIEBERMAN ADMINISTRATION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw contributor and Seton Hall law professor Craig Albert suggests a novel solution to the election debacle. Albert \nexplains why the Constitution’s electoral college system could result in the election of Bush as President and Lieberman as \nVice-President, and then contends that this compromise result might be the best of all possible worlds.\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Nov. 17, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\nNEIL H. BUCHANAN<\/a>\n
\nIS YOUR VOTE A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT?<\/a>\n\n
FindLaw contributor, economics Ph.D., and Michigan law student Neil H. Buchanan offers a novel interpretation \nof the Supreme Court’s election decision — contending that the principle implicit behind Chief Justice Rehnquist’s \nconcurrence (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) is contract formalism. Buchanan suggests that the concurring \nJustices believe that voting instructions create a sort of contract between the voter and the government, which \nshould be rigidly enforced, and explains the problems with this sort of formalism, both in contract law and \nvoting.<\/span>\n
\nTuesday, Dec. 19, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\nANDREW WENDER COHEN<\/a>\n
\nTHE CLOSE WINNER’S CURSE<\/a>\n\n
FindLaw contributor, legal historian, and Syracuse professor Andrew Wender \nCohen examines the likely fate of the candidate who ultimately wins the \nPresidential elections. As Professor Cohen explains, winners of close \nelections like this one have historically fallen into three categories — \nSinkers, Victims, and Champs. And the Champs (re-elected to a second term) \nhave been few and far between.<\/span>\n
\nMonday, Dec. 04, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\nR. TED CRUZ<\/a>\n
\nA SUMMARY OF THE BRIEF FILED BY GOVERNOR BUSH<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw contributor, attorney, and Bush Domestic Policy Advisor R. Ted Cruz worked on Governor Bush’s brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision concerning the manual recount deadline should be reversed. In this piece, he explains the main arguments set forth in the brief.\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Dec. 01, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\nMARK LEVINE<\/a>\n
\nTHE COURT’S “GORE EXCEPTION” (A.K.A. THE FAMOUS Q&A E-MAIL)<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw contributor and attorney Mark Levine started a chain reaction when he sent this Q&A e-mail to his close friends and family — only to find, soon afterwards, that it had been forwarded to so many people that it had touched 40 states and several foreign countries, and inspired over 2000 e-mail responses. We reproduce Mr. Levine’s e-mail — a plain-language, witty, and unabashedly pro-Gore Q&A about the Supreme Court decision that ended the election — for you here.\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Dec. 18, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\n\n\nSANFORD LEVINSON<\/a>\n
\nTHE TWELVTH AMENDMENT: HOW AN OBSCURE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION PUT DICK CHENEY ON AN AIRPLANE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw Contributor Sanford Levinson discusses how, because of the Twelfth Amendment, Republican vice-presidential nominee Dick Cheney had to register to vote in his former home state of Wisconsin. Levinson also warns that this obscure constitutional provision could be a timebomb waiting to happen, should a presidential election ever deadlock in the Electoral College.\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Aug. 16, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\n\n\nNEAL KUMAR KATYAL<\/a>\n
\nA SUMMARY OF THE BRIEF FILED BY VICE PRESIDENT GORE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw contributor and Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal worked on Vice President Gore’s brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision concerning the manual recount deadline should be upheld. In this piece, Professor Katyal explains the main arguments set forth in the brief.\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Dec. 01, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\n\nFLORIDA’S ELECTION DAY VOTE COULD BE IRRELEVANT<\/a>\n\n
\nMany commentators have projected that the Florida election conflict may wind up in the courts after the recount concludes. Not so. Georgetown law Professor Neal Katyal explains why, pursuant to a federal statute, it is actually the Florida legislature, not the courts, that should have the first crack at addressing widely-reported allegations of fraud and confusion in the Florida elections.\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Nov. 09, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\n\n\nVICTOR WILLIAMS<\/a>\n
\n“GET THIS ELECTION RATIFIED”: THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE SHOULD ACT\n<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw contributor and Catholic University law professor Victor Williams examines Governor Bush’s plea to “get this election ratified” in the context of constitutional text and history. He concludes that the Florida legislature’s slating Bush electors — as it has indicated in its special session that it will do — would properly ratify the vote certified by the Secretary of State, and would be authorized within our Constitutional scheme. \n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Dec. 11, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\nTHIS WEEK’S ELEVENTH CIRCUIT BATTLE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw contributor and Catholic University law professor Victor Williams discusses the constitutional issues the Eleventh Circuit will consider this week, in deciding Governor’s Bush’s franchise equality challenge to the Florida manual recounts, and argues that Bush should prevail.\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Dec. 05, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\n\nIT’S TIME TO TAKE OUR ELECTION BACK FROM LAWYERS AND JUDGES – PART I<\/a> & PART II<\/a>\n\n
\nIn a two-part look at our unresolved Presidential election, Catholic University law professor and FindLaw contributor Victor Williams urges the Florida legislature to put an end to this current debacle. He also reflects upon what may happen if, under our current Presidential election system, the decision of who becomes our next president moves to the House and the Senate.\n
\n<\/span>\nNov. 23-24, 2000<\/span>\n\n

\n\n

Election Forum Page 1<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n

—<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n