Source: Nick Wing / The Huffington Post
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday cast doubt on the criteria used to decide the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ultimately delivered the presidency to George W. Bush.
Speaking at a gala event for the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen, Stevens said the court’s decision to consider “hanging chads” and “dimpled chads” differently was “unacceptable.”
“The rationale was really quite unacceptable to me, because there was a violation of the equal protection clause by treating hanging chads differently from dimpled chads,” he said. “The difference between the two of them, of course, is absolutely zero because when you punch a ballot you do indicate for whom you’re going to vote whether you make a dimple or a hanging chad or you do what is required by the machine that counts the vote. The notion that there should be a distinction of constitutional magnitude between dimpled chads and hanging chads, I find hard to accept.”
Stevens has argued in the past that the vote-counting process that led to the Supreme Court case was discriminatory.
To read this article in its entirety visit The Huffington Post.