For a generation, presidential races were blowouts. Every winner between 1980 and 1996 triumphed by at least 37 electoral college votes. It was a calmer time for U.S. elections. Landslides relegated conspiracy theories about contested elections to the fringes of U.S. politics.

Then came 2000. The last polls showed a dead heat. On election night, the networks called it prematurely for Al Gore, then retracted their calls, then called it prematurely for George W. Bush, and retracted again.

Judges were called in to settle the mess. Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, put an end to the recount and effectively declared Bush the winner. The fractured opinions were a maze of disagreements. The justices on the winning side warned that the opinion should not be cited as precedent. Their reasoning flummoxed legal scholars — even those who agreed with the outcome. 

Join us on Tuesday, December 9, at 2 p.m. ET for a live virtual event to discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore. Did the case change the relationship between Americans and their elections, and between elections and the courts? Was it merely a symptom of broader changes in American politics? Or was the decision a historical anomaly with no lasting impact on U.S. law and politics? 

Speakers:

• David Boies, Founding Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner
• Benjamin Ginsberg, David Bernstein Professor, Chair, Center for Advanced Governmental Studies, Johns Hopkins University
• Barbara Pariente, Justice (retired), Supreme Court of Florida
• Wendy Weiser, Vice President, Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice
• Moderator: Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan Center