The dissent claimed this ruling "contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit."
The dissent claimed this ruling "contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit." Although the majority opinion declared the principle of "intent" sufficient to "satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment," the imprecise application was found contrary to rulings in Gray v. Sanders and Moore v. Ogilvie. Thus, this case found a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the "standardless" and "manual" nature of the proceedings, and reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order. For 10 points, name this ruling ending the recount of ballots in the 2000 Presidential election.
The dissent claimed this ruling "contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit."
{Bush} v. Gore [accept {Gore} v. Bush]