Visitors to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington can marvel at the many artifacts that reflect our nation’s history. One of the exhibits changed the very course of history. This is the “butterfly ballot” used by Palm Beach County, Florida in the 2000 presidential election. In December of that year, the Supreme Court halted the state’s recount, handing the presidency to George W. Bush.
But with that poor ballot and the resulting 5-4 decision, Al Gore would have become president. moreover, Bush vs. Gore It changed the trajectory of election law and cast the courts in a more partisan light than ever before.
It all started with that infamous vote. Presidential candidates from major and minor parties appeared on either side of a row of holes in the center of the ballot for voters to punch with a stylus to indicate their choice. The first two names on the left were Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore, but confusingly they corresponded to holes 1 and 3.
In addition to layout issues, there were also problems with the way the ballots recorded votes. Some voters punched out their cards cleanly, while others left only indentations, which election workers later examined with a magnifying glass to determine the voters’ intentions. Some ballots had issues with “hanging chads,” where parts of the ballot remained stuck together in one or two corners. (The Smithsonian Institution also has these bags.)
Research shows that at least 2,000 voters in Palm Beach County mistakenly chose Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan when they were planning to vote for Gore, who lost Florida and thus the Electoral College by a margin of just 537 votes.
The Supreme Court’s opinion noted that “this controversy appears to revolve around a voting card that was designed to be punched with a stylus, but, either by mistake or deliberate omission, the hole was not punched with enough precision for the machine to register the hole.” It was true. But it sparked an unprecedented firestorm when the majority reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to order a recount under Florida election law, ending those efforts over concerns about the timely resolution of the election.
The two dissenting justices otherwise agreed that the different standards used to determine voter intent were constitutionally problematic, given the poor design of the ballots, but believed there was sufficient time to proceed with a recount. “The extraordinary circumstances of this case obscure the usual principles that determine appropriate resolution,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a dissenting opinion. “Federal courts defer to state high court interpretations of state-specific laws.”
At the time, public trust in the courts had been relatively stable for several decades. Approval rating was 62% four months ago. Bush vs. Gorethen declined slightly, but then recovered in the following years. Even after such a contentious and acrimonious post-election process, the court was able to elicit public confidence that never depleted. The peaceful transfer of power proceeded, and Gore, as vice president, presided over the joint session of Congress that certified Bush as the electorate on January 6, 2001.
But the seeds of skepticism had been planted. A partisan rift developed between Republicans and Democrats after the ruling, with 80% of Republicans viewing the court favorably compared to 62% of Democrats when Bush took office.
This difference gradually grew and then narrowed over the next 20 years. Two Supreme Court appointments made by President George W. Bush during his second term were pivotal in watering down the Voting Rights Act, deregulating campaign finance laws, and allowing partisan gerrymandering. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationtook away the constitutional right to abortion and further expanded that right.
The court’s favorability rating among Democrats has now fallen to 26 percent, compared to 71 percent among Republicans. And a June 2025 poll found that only 20 percent of Americans currently think the courts are “politically neutral,” with majorities of Republicans and Democrats disagreeing.
But Florida’s recount crisis prompted constructive reforms. That led to bipartisan passage. Help America Vote Act The law made a number of improvements to the voter registration process, as well as setting basic national standards for certain aspects of election administration, such as requiring specific features from voting systems to improve recounts and audits.
Most recently, after Trump supporters attempted to overturn the 2020 election by exploiting weaknesses in the 135-year-old law governing electoral college procedures, Congress passed the Electoral College Reform Act, closing several loopholes to clarify ambiguities in the previous law. These important measures strengthened the law governing how presidential elections are certified, but did not eliminate the possibility that another contested election would end up before the Supreme Court.
If another close presidential election contest looms, courts will have the burden of convincing a highly polarized public that its decisions are based on law, not politics. Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting opinion Bush vs. Gore “While we may never know with absolute certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is absolutely clear: the public’s confidence in judges as impartial guardians of the rule of law.”
Twenty-five years later, that warning rings true.
This article originally appeared on the Brennan Center for Justice Website.
Stephen Spaulding is Managing Director of the Kohlberg Center at the Brennan Center.
Recommended citation: Stephen Spaulding, SThe Supreme Court and election law still feel in decline after 25 years. Bush v. Gore, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (December 10, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-and-election-law-still-feel-fallout-25-years-after-bush-v
