Noted legal scholar Dworkin (Sovereign Virtue) introduces this collection as "a deeper inspection of and debate about" issues raised by the 2000 election and the Supreme Court's decision to stop the Florida recounts. But constitutional scholars Cass Sunstein, Richard H. Pildes and Richard A. Posner primarily recycle arguments made last year (in The Vote, which Sunstein co-edited, and Posner's Breaking the Deadlock), while discussions of the electoral college by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and political scientist Nelson W. Polsby are informative, but not innovative. Constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe, who represented Gore in early proceedings, highlights contradictions in the decision and its rationalization that others have overlooked, but only Lani Guinier seems actively engaged in synthesizing multiple strands of legal, historical and democratic concerns. She shares Pildes's belief that Bush
v. Gore
belongs to a larger pattern of cases constricting democratic participation, but Guinier puts it into a broader context. The Supreme Court's focus on equal treatment of ballots (rather than people), she argues, is part of a trend in which supposedly objective measures of merit—literacy tests, SATs, etc.—have been used to disfranchise and disempower blacks, Latinos and poor whites. She also contrasts American democratic practice with democracies that enjoy substantially higher participation rates and far less class bias. Dworkin and Sunstein both briefly, but effectively, critique Posner's justification of the Bush
v.Gore
decision, which he calls "pragmatic adjudication." (Sept.)
Forecast:Despite some unevenness in these essays, the book is a good place to start for readers wanting some perspective on the 2000 election. The problem is, will they hear about the book or will the media consider it old news?
