- Sep 28, 2010
- Reaction score
The case from PA. and TX. had the same standing that the Bush campaign had in 2004. Why did the court not hear it? Three did want to hear it.
No it didn't.
"Any suggestion by Texas that variations in county election procedures amount to an equal protection violation under Bush v. Gore is misguided. Bush was expressly “limited to [its] present circumstances,” which involved a state court order requiring a manual recount but without prescribing a uniform standard for doing so. Id. at 109. Bush was concerned with ensuring the fairness of a post-election recount, and this Court determined that the arbitrary, ad hoc standards for gleaning a voter’s intended choice of candidate “lacked sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.” 531 U.S. at 107. Here, there is no allegation of state or county officials making determinations about which candidate a Pennsylvania voter selected. And the question before the Court in Bush was “not whether local entities in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections.” Id. at 109. Indeed, variations in county election procedures are permissible. See, e.g., Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Secretary, No. 20-3371, 2020 WL 7012522, at *6-7 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2020) (“Reasonable county-to-county variation is not discrimination. Bush v. Gore does not federalize every jot and tittle of state election law.”)."