Posted by David Post:
Bush v. Gore, and The Meaning of Cases:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_21-2008_12_27.shtml#1230046408


   Adam Liptak has [1]an interesting piece in this morning's New York
   Times about the precedential significance of Bush v Gore (issued 8
   years ago this month). The opinion itself contained unusual (and
   arguably unique, for a Supreme Court opinion) limiting language: �Our
   consideration is limited to the present circumstances,� the majority
   famously said, �for the problem of equal protection in election
   processes generally presents many complexities.� But as Liptak points
   out, a number of recent cases have apparently disregarded this
   limitation and relied on the decision for a more general principles
   applicable to a broader range of circumstances than those presented in
   the original case.

   For you law students out there, it's a very important object lesson.
   Like any legal opinion, Bush v. Gore can "mean" many different things;
   there are inevitably many different ways to characterize its
   "holding," and you can't tell which one is "correct" just by reading
   the opinion, however carefully and skillfully you do so. Ultimately,
   its meaning will determined by what happens subsequent to the decision
   itself, in the ways in which later courts use it and apply it in
   future cases. In one view, Bush v. Gore holds, in Liptak's words, that
   "a court-supervised statewide recount violates equal protection
   guarantees when it treats similar ballots differently by instructing
   local officials to use new and insufficiently specified standards."
   Or, it might have held that "once a state grants the right to vote on
   equal terms, it may not by later arbitrary and disparate treatment,
   value one person�s vote over that of another� -- a much broader
   meaning for the decision, and one that will be applicable to many more
   cases. [The latter reading is the one given to the case by the Sixth
   Circuit in [2]its recent ruling allowing the challenge to Ohio's
   election law to proceed].

References

   1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/us/23bar.html?_r=1&ref=us
   2. 
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/6thCircuitOpinionLWVvBrunner.pdf

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to