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

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.