Stevens: Rationale for Bush v. Gore was “unacceptable”
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday night that he's come to the realization that the rationale behind the court's Bush v. Gore decision that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election "was really quite unacceptable" because it differentiated between so-called "hanging chads" and "dimpled chads." That distinction, he told a gala event for the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington, "violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution." All votes should have been considered the same way, he explained.
Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently expressed regret that the court had taken up the case at all, and Stevens said he was "pleased to hear" about O'Connor's shift. The liberal Stevens wrote the dissent in that case.