Seven law professors and historians weigh in on the 2000 election in scholarly but lively essays. Pulitzer Prize–winning Stanford historian and political scientist Rakove (Original Meanings) calls it unfinished "not because of its inherent importance, but rather for what it revealed about our politics, institutions, and even the Constitution itself." These essays explore systemic foibles in U.S. politics with an eye toward wider contexts and deeper causes. John Milton Cooper Jr. and Henry Brady both contrast 2000 with the realigning election of 1896, when regional party dominance was reversed. Cooper stresses the normalcy of close elections, while Brady tracks regional flip-flops and analyzes political party coalitions in terms of the moral and economic issues influencing major demographic groups' partisan tilts. Alexander Keycard relates Florida's multiple forms of disenfranchisement to historical patterns, and Larry Kramer explicates the two major cases in both the Florida and the U.S. Supreme courts, concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court's final decision was "an extreme instance of a regular pattern" of conservative judicial activism that distrusts democratic processes. Pamela S. Karlan details the logical and historical development of equal-protection election law, illuminating major anomalies and contortions in Bush v. Gore. Rakove extensively critiques the electoral college, a somewhat accidental creation that, he says, never functioned as intended. Stephen Holmes casts the disenfranchisement of minority voters as an example of "selective
defunding of public institutions," and disparages what he views as conservatives' ideological hypocrisy and liberals' romantic association of "judicial review with socially progressive causes." This fine multidisciplinary response could have a lasting impact on how Americans understand the 2000 election. 3 charts. (Nov.)
