Substantial Noncompliance and Reasonable Doubt: How the Florida Courts Got it Wrong in the ‘Butterfly Ballot’ Case

31 Pages Posted: 10 Aug 2011

See all articles by Steven J. Mulroy

Steven J. Mulroy

University of Memphis - Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law

Date Written: August 10, 2011

Abstract

The Article discusses the much-overlooked “butterfly ballot” litigation challenging the 2000 presidential election results in Palm Beach County, Florida, arguing that it was by far the more viable legal vehicle for challenging the election than the distinct legal claims which rose to the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. It argues that the ballot design violated state law in a number of ways, and, contrary to the state courts’ holding, rose to the level of “substantial noncompliance” with election law necessary for invalidation of the election results. It responds to other arguments against liability, such as waiver and estoppel, and ultimately concludes that the state courts reached the wrong result.

Suggested Citation

Mulroy, Steven J., Substantial Noncompliance and Reasonable Doubt: How the Florida Courts Got it Wrong in the ‘Butterfly Ballot’ Case (August 10, 2011). Stanford Law & Policy Review, Vol. 14.1, p. 203, 2003; University of Memphis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 107. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1907926

Steven J. Mulroy (Contact Author)

University of Memphis - Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law ( email )

One North Front Street
Memphis, TN 38103-2189
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
28
Abstract Views
480
PlumX Metrics