Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The Supreme Court of the United States? decision in Bush v. Gore generated widespread discussion and debate. Some aspects of the decision caused concern and consternation. However, regardless of partisan predilection, almost everyone expressed agreement with the Court when it stated, ?After the current counting [referring to the various ballot recounts in Florida], it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.? The circumstances surrounding the presidential election of 2000, epitomized by the extraordinary series of events in the state of Florida, provided abundant evidence that a state-by-state critical analysis of the current electoral system as administered by those states was sorely needed. Surely, regardless of party affiliation, state legislators could be expected to act in response to the troubling events that occurred in Florida, and the resulting admonitions implicit in the Bush v. Gore decision. It seemed logical to assume that state legislators would move expeditiously to ferret out inadequacies in their state?s electoral structure and enact legislation mandating necessary changes to electoral systems. But have they done so or can it be reasonably anticipated that they will? Has the Court?s oblique call-to-action actually generated any meaningful electoral reform at the state level, or at least some serious and substantial movement in that direction? This paper examines what has occurred regarding state-level electoral reform in the year following Bush v. Gore, finds that little if any reform has taken place, and proffers the incentive for political elites to retain their position of power and the consequent reluctance to alter the electoral status quo as a partial explanation the paucity of electoral reform that has been implemented at the state level since the 2000 election.