text:
Bush v. Gore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the election of George W. Bush against Al Gore, see United States presidential election, 2000.
Bush v. Gore
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 11, 2000
Decided December 12, 2000
Full case name
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman, et al.
Docket nos.
00-949
Citations
531 U.S. 98 (more)
121 S. Ct. 525; 148 L. Ed. 2d 388; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430; 69 U.S.L.W. 4029; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26
Argument
Oral argument
Prior history
Judgment for defendant, Fla. Cir. Ct.; matter certified to Florida Supreme Court, Fla. Ct. App.; aff'd in part, rev'd in part, sub nom. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273 (2000); cert. granted, stay granted, 531 U.S. 1036 (2000)
Holding
In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Per curiam.
Concurrence
Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas
Dissent
Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent
Souter, joined by Breyer; Stevens, Ginsburg (all but part C)
Dissent
Ginsburg, joined by Stevens; Souter, Breyer (part I)
Dissent
Breyer, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg (except part I-A-1); Souter (part I)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, amend. XIV; 3 U.S.C. § 5
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court resolving the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000). The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election.
In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties and ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12.[1] The vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause was 7–2, and regarding the lack of an alternative method was 5–4.[2] Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.
The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification to stand, as made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, for George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 to win the Electoral College, and the defeat of Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a "faithless elector" from the District of Columbia abstained).
Media organizations subsequently analyzed the ballots and found that the originally proposed county-based recounts would have resulted in a different outcome (Bush victory) than a full statewide recount (Gore victory). Florida subsequently changed to new voting machines to avoid punch cards which had allowed dimpled or hanging chads.
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
2 Stay of the Florida recount
3 Rapid developments
4 Relevant law
5 Issues considered by the Court
5.1 Equal Protection Clause
5.1.1 Remedy
5.2 Article II
6 Decision
6.1 Equal Protection Clause
6.1.1 Remedy
6.2 Article II
7 Scholarly analyses
7.1 The critical remedial issue
7.2 Limitation to present circumstances
7.3 Accusation of partisanship or conflict of interest
7.4 Recount by media organizations
7.5 Critiques
8 See also
9 Notes and references
10 External links
Background[edit]
See also: Electoral College (United States) and United States presidential election, 2000
In the United States, each state conducts its own popular vote election for President and Vice President. The voters are actually voting for a slate of electors, each of whom pledges to vote for a particular candidate for each office, in the Electoral College. Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that each state legislature decides how electors are chosen. Early in U.S. history, most state legislatures directly appointed the slate of electors for each of their respective states. Today, state legislatures have enacted laws to provide for the selection of electors by popular vote within each state. While these laws vary, most states, including Florida, award all electoral votes to the candidate for either office who receives a plurality of the state's popular vote. Any candidate who receives an absolute majority of all electoral votes nationally (270 since 1963) wins the Presidential or Vice Presidential election.
Election 2000; Close-up view of satellite trucks parked by the Florida State Capitol during the 2000 Presidential election vote dispute
On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won with 48.8% of the vote in Florida, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[3] The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated[4] automatic machine recount occurred. On November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[5] According to legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, later analysis showed that a total of 18 counties—accounting for a quarter of all votes cast in Florida—did not carry out the legally mandated machine recount, but "[n]o one from the Gore campaign ever challenged" the notion that the machine recount had been completed.[6] Florida's election laws[7] allow a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade, which are counties that traditionally vote Democratic and would be expected to garner more votes for Gore. Gore did not, however, request any recounts in counties that traditionally vote Republican. The four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However, Florida law also required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election,[8] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the seven-day deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary, after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide certification.[9] Before the 5 pm deadline on November 14, Volusia County completed its manual recount and certified its results. At 5 pm on November 14, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she had received the certified returns from all 67 counties, while Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting manual recounts.[10]
Harris issued a set of criteria[3] by which she would determine whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 pm the following day, a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late filing. Four counties submitted statements, and after reviewing the submissions Harris determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, she would certify the results of the presidential election on Saturday, November 18, 2000.[3] On that date, she certified Bush the winner and litigation ensued.
Stay of the Florida recount[edit]
Florida Supreme Court
By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions regarding the presidential election in Florida[11] and on that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4–3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount.[12] On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5–4 to stay the Florida recount, because according to Justice Scalia:
It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.[13]
The dissenters opined:
Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm... Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election.[13]
The four dissenting justices argued that stopping the recount was an "unwise" violation of "three venerable rules of judicial restraint", namely respecting the opinions of state supreme courts, cautiously exercising jurisdiction when "another branch of the Federal Government" has a large measure of responsibility to resolve the issue, and avoiding making peremptory conclusions on federal constitutional law prior to a full presentation on the issue.
Rapid developments[edit]
Supporters for the Gore-Lieberman ticket outside the U.S. Supreme Court on December 11
The oral argument in Bush v. Gore occurred on December 11.[14] Theodore Olson, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General, delivered Bush's oral argument. New York lawyer David Boies argued for Gore.
During the brief period when the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating on Bush v. Gore, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarifications[15] that the U.S. Supreme Court had requested on December 4 in the case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000). Because of the extraordinary nature and argued urgency of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bush v. Gore on December 12, 2000, less than a day after hearing oral argument.
Relevant law[edit]
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, on which the decision in Bush v. Gore was based,[16] states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article II, § 1, cl. 2 specifies the number of electors per state, and, most relevant to this case,[17] specifies the manner in which those electors are selected, stipulating that:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
This clause arguably gives power to only one branch of Florida's state government (i.e., the state legislature).[18]
3 U.S.C. § 5 regulates the "determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"[19] in Presidential elections. Of particular relevance[17] to this case was the so-called "safe harbor" provision, which allows states to appoint their electors without Congressional interference if done by a specified deadline:
If any State shall have provided ... for its final determination of ... the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State ... at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination ... shall be conclusive.[20]
Since the electors were set to meet December 18, the "safe harbor" deadline was December 12, just one day after the Court heard oral arguments in this case.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 1257:
Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States...
Issues considered by the Court[edit]
Theodore Olson represented Bush
The Court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve the case:
Were the recounts, as they were being conducted, constitutional?[21]
If the recounts were unconstitutional, what is the remedy?[22]
Three days earlier, the five-Justice majority had ordered the recount stopped[23] and the Court had to decide whether to restart it.
Equal Protection Clause[edit]
Bush argued that recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because Florida did not have a statewide vote recount standard. Each county was on its own to determine whether a given ballot was an acceptable one. Two voters could have marked their ballots in an identical manner, but the ballot in one county would be counted while the ballot in a different county would be rejected, due to the conflicting manual recount standards.[24]
Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under the Equal Protection Clause.[25] Furthermore, Gore argued that the consequence of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it treated different voters differently would effectively render every state election unconstitutional[26] and that each method has a different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a "punch-card" county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, every state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to be constitutional.
Remedy[edit]
David Boies represented Gore
This was the most closely decided issue in the case. The arguments presented by counsel did not extensively address what the Court should do if the Court were to find an Equal Protection violation. However, Gore did argue briefly that the appropriate remedy would not be to cancel all recounts, but rather would be to order a proper recount.[27]
Article II[edit]
Bush also argued that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law was so erroneous that their ruling had the effect of making new law. Since this "new law" had not been directed by the Florida legislature, it violated Article II. Bush argued that Article II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret state election law in presidential elections to ensure that the intent of the state legislature is followed.[28]
Gore argued that Article II presupposes judicial review and interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme Court did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory construction to reach its decision.[29]
Decision[edit]
In brief, the breakdown of the decisions was:
Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Souter and Breyer) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.[30]
Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Rehnquist,[31] O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas in support; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer opposed). Justices Souter and Breyer wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.[32][33]
Three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) argued that the Florida Supreme Court had acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature. Four justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) specifically disputed this in their dissenting opinions, and the remaining two Justices (O'Connor and Kennedy) declined to join Rehnquist's concurrence on the matter.
Equal Protection Clause[edit]
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7–2 vote. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.[34]
According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'"[35]) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Remedy[edit]
The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. §5."
Four justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer) dissented as to stopping the recount. Two of those four dissenters (Justices Breyer and Souter) acknowledged that the counting up until December 9 had not conformed with Equal Protection requirements. However, Souter and Breyer favored remanding the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to halt the recount altogether.[36] The actual counting had ended with the December 9 injunction issued by the same five-justice majority, three days before any deadline.[23]
The dissenting opinions strongly criticized the five justice majority for involving the Court in state-level affairs. Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) concluded as follows:[37]
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead "remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Gore's attorneys therefore understood that they could fight on, and could petition the Florida Supreme Court to repudiate the notion that December 12 was final under Florida law.[38] However, Gore dropped the case, because he was not optimistic about how the Florida justices would react to further arguments and, as one of his advisers put it, "the best Gore could hope for was a slate of disputed electors".[38] In addition to this, Gore campaign chairman Bill Daley argued that fighting on was futile because even if the Florida Supreme Court defied the U.S. Supreme Court and ordered a new recount, "[t]he GOP would take them straight back to Washington, where the [U.S.] Supreme Court would repeat: 'You ain't going to count, okay? So quit bothering us.'"[39]
On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000, that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law, although this was disputed in a concurring opinion by Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw who nevertheless expressed deference to the U.S. Supreme Court's view on this issue and who also argued that, in any case, the Florida Supreme Court would (in his opinion) be unable to craft a remedy which would satisfy all of the U.S. Supreme Court's equal protection, due process, and other concerns.[40]
Article II[edit]
Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, began by emphasizing that this was an unusual case in which the Constitution requires federal courts to assess whether a state supreme court has properly interpreted the will of the state legislature. Usually, federal courts do not make that type of assessment, and indeed the per curiam opinion in this case did not do so. After addressing this aspect of the case, Rehnquist examined and agreed with arguments that had been made by the dissenting justices of the Florida Supreme Court.
Scholarly analyses[edit]
Bush v. Gore prompted many strong reactions from scholars, pundits, and others over the Court's decision.
The critical remedial issue[edit]
The most closely decided aspect of the case was the key question of what remedy the Court should order, in view of an Equal Protection Clause violation. Gore had argued for a new recount that would pass constitutional muster, but the Court instead chose to end the election, asserting that "the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S. C. §5." This assertion in Bush v. Gore has proven very controversial.
Michael W. McConnell has written that the U.S Supreme Court's decision on December 12 "may have reached the right result for the wrong reason."[41] McConnell points to the Florida Supreme Court's December 11 opinion, which characterized December 12 as an "outside deadline". Here is the pertinent excerpt from the December 11 opinion of the Florida Supreme Court:[15]
What is a reasonable time required for completion will, in part, depend on whether the election is for a statewide office, for a federal office or for presidential electors. In the case of the presidential election, the determination of reasonableness must be circumscribed by the provisions of 3 U.S.C. § 5, which sets December 12, 2000, as the date for final determination of any state's dispute concerning its electors for that determination to be given conclusive effect in Congress... As always, it is necessary to read all provisions of the elections code in pari materia. In this case, that comprehensive reading required that there be time for an elections contest pursuant to section 102.168, which all parties had agreed was a necessary component of the statutory scheme and to accommodate the outside deadline set forth in 3 U.S.C. § 5 of December 12, 2000.
However, according to Nelson Lund, one might argue that the Florida Supreme Court was discussing the "protest provisions of the Florida Election Code, whereas the issues in Bush v. Gore arose under the contest provisions."[42] Likewise, Peter Berkowitz has written that, "Perhaps it would have been more generous for the Court to have asked the Florida court on remand whether 'outside deadline' referred to contest-period as well as protest-period recounts."[43] Abner Greene has pointed to evidence that "the Florida Supreme Court thought all manual recounts – whether protest or contest – must be completed no later than December 12."[44] Nevertheless, Greene concluded that, "lack of clarity about the Florida Supreme Court’s views on the safe-harbor provision should have resulted in a remand to that court for clarification,"[44] in addition to the remand of December 4.[45] The Court in Bush v. Gore did remand the case instead of dismissing it, but the remand did not include another request for clarification. Louise Weinberg argues that, even giving the Court the benefit of the doubt that it acted appropriately in intervening in Florida state law, its actions should be deemed unconstitutional because its intervention was not coupled with any kind of remedy aimed at determining the actual outcome of the election.[46]
Limitation to present circumstances[edit]
Some critics of the decision argue that the majority seemed to seek refuge from their own logic[47][48] in the following sentence in the majority opinion: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."[49] The Court's defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read over-broadly,[50] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[51] Regardless of whether the majority intended the decision to be precedential, it has been cited by several federal courts in election cases.[52][53][54][55][56]
Accusation of partisanship or conflict of interest[edit]
It has been claimed that the majority opinion emerged from conservative Republican Justices ruling against Gore for partisan reasons.[57] This claim was made, for example, by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, who wrote:
[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[57]
Chapman University School of Law professor Ronald Rotunda has responded as follows:
Not only is that claim inconsistent with the position of Justices Breyer and Souter, it is inconsistent with the position of three of the Florida justices who dissented. No Justice on the Florida Supreme Court was a Republican appointee, but three of them concluded that the recount that Vice President Gore wanted was unconstitutional. Three of the seven Florida Supreme Court justices also found an Equal Protection violation when the manual ballot-counters used different procedures to examine identical ballots and count them differently.[58]
There has also been analysis of whether several Justices had a conflict of interest that should have forced them to recuse themselves from the decision. On several occasions, William Rehnquist had expressed interest in retiring under a Republican administration; one study found that press reports "are equivocal on whether facts existed that would have created a conflict of interest" for Rehnquist. At an election night party, Sandra Day O'Connor became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.[59] However, both Justices remained on the Court beyond President Bush's first term, until Rehnquist's death in 2005 and O'Connor's retirement in 2006. According to Steven Foster of the Manchester Grammar School:
On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas's wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.[60]
Various ethics experts have asserted that there was no significant conflict of interest for Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.[61]
Recount by media organizations[edit]
In 2001, a consortium of news organizations, assisted by professional statisticians (NORC), examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting all the Florida ballots. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected. In each alternative way of recounting the rejected ballots, the number of additional votes for Gore was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush. Under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. Likewise, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. On the other hand, the study also found that if the official vote-counting standards had not rejected ballots containing overvotes (where a voter selects more than one candidate in a race where each voter may only choose one candidate) a statewide tally would have resulted in Gore emerging as the victor by 60 to 171 votes. These tallies conducted by the NORC consortium are caveated with the statement: "But no study of this type can accurately recreate Election Day 2000 or predict what might have emerged from individual battles over more than 6 million votes in Florida's 67 counties."[62][63]
Florida also received an additional 2,411 overseas ballots after the 7 PM deadline on election day. Florida officials rejected these overseas ballots, mostly from members of the United States Armed Forces. By rejecting those ballots, Florida provided Gore a 202-vote lead in the state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on December 8, 2000, overturned these rejections and ordered that all federal write-in ballots previously rejected be counted. The effect of these additional overseas ballots provided Bush with a 537-vote lead in the state. The ruling also noted:[64]
Service personnel give up many things when they enter the military, including the free exercise of some civil rights enjoyed by civilians at home. The sacrifice should not go beyond the surrender of rights that are incompatible with military duties. These men and women of our Armed Forces should be able to expect as much and no less, because of their induction into military service, than those of us who remain at home pursuing normal activities. It certainly would appear unnecessary that our soldiers and sailors and merchant marines must make a special effort to retain the right to vote.
The subsequent analysis revealed that black-majority precincts had three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts. "For minorities, the ballot survey found, a recount would not have redressed the inequities because most ballots were beyond retrieving. But a recount could have restored the votes of thousands of older voters whose dimpled and double-voted ballots were indecipherable to machines but would have been clear in a ballot-by-ballot review."[65] The ballot review later conducted by a consortium of news organizations did not have access to these decisive ballots, which in many cases had disappeared and could not be produced.[66]
Critiques[edit]
Part of the reason recounts could not be completed was the various stoppages ordered by the various branches and levels of the judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court itself.[67] Opponents argued that it was improper for the Court (by the same five Justices who joined the per curiam opinion) to grant a stay that preliminarily stopped the recounts based on the possibility of irreparable injury and success on the merits.[68] Supporters of the stay — such as Charles Fried — contend that the validity of the stay was vindicated by the ultimate decision on the merits and that the only thing that the stay prevented was a recount "being done in an unconstitutional way."[69]
Some of the decision's critics argued that the Court's decision was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause,[68] and contrary to the political question doctrine.[70] On the other hand, Geoffrey R. Stone has expressed sympathy with the Court's equal protection reasoning, even though Stone was dismayed by what he saw as the sudden and suspect conversion of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas to that equal protection principle. According to Stone:
No one familiar with the jurisprudence of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas could possibly have imagined that they would vote to invalidate the Florida recount process on the basis of their own well-developed and oft-invoked approach to the Equal Protection Clause.[71]
The dissent of Justice Stevens was criticized by George Mason University School of Law Professor Nelson Lund.[72] Lund said: "[t]he best known passage, which comes from Justice Stevens' dissent, consists of a rhetorical flourish rather than analysis." In that passage, Stevens had criticized the Court for questioning the impartiality of Florida's judiciary.[73]
Professor Charles Zelden faults the per curiam opinion in the case for, among other things, not declaring that the nation's electoral system required significant reform, and for not condemning administration of elections by part-time boards of elections dominated by partisan and unprofessional officials. Zelden concludes that the Court's failure to spotlight this critical flaw in American electoral democracy made a replay of Bush v. Gore more likely, not less likely, either in Florida or elsewhere.[48] In 2013, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had voted with the majority, speculated that perhaps the Court should have declined to hear the case, which "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation".[74]
See also[edit]
United States presidential election in Florida, 2000
List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin
Electoral Commission (United States)
George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States
Recount, a 2008 HBO movie about the 2000 presidential election and Bush v. Gore.
Notes and references[edit]
Jump up ^ U.S. Supreme Court Docket for Bush v. Gore
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore". Oyez Project. Retrieved January 22, 2011. "Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by 'later arbitrary and disparate treatment,' the per curiam opinion held 7–2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional."
^ Jump up to: a b c Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1220 (November 21, 2000). Late-filing criteria are at note 5. See The American Presidency Project for other documents related to the 2000 election dispute.
Jump up ^ See Fla. Stat. § 102.141(4). "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 141". Archived from the original on April 1, 2005. (This archived version of the Florida statute is dated July 2, 2001, and is from Archive.org.)
Jump up ^ "Election 2000 Timeline". PG Publishing Co., Inc. December 17, 2000. Retrieved October 28, 2006.
Jump up ^ Toobin, Jeffrey. "Too Close to Call". Random House, 2002, p. 66.
Jump up ^ See Fla. Stat. § 102.166. "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166". Archived from the original on April 1, 2005. (This archived version of the Florida statute is dated July 2, 2001, and is from Archive.org.)
Jump up ^ See Fla. Stat. § 102.112. "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 112". Archived from the original on April 21, 2001. (This archived version of the Florida statute is dated April 21, 2001, and is from Archive.org.)
Jump up ^ "Leon County Judge Rules on Certification" (PDF). Retrieved October 28, 2006.
Jump up ^ "Text: Florida Recount Results". Retrieved October 28, 2006.
Jump up ^ For example, the concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore cited the December 6, 2000, decision in Touchston v. McDermott, 234 F.3d 1130 Archived December 9, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. (11th Cir. 2000).
Jump up ^ Gore v. Harris, 772 S2d 1243 (December 8, 2000).
^ Jump up to: a b Bush v. Gore on Application for Stay.
Jump up ^ Transcript and audio of oral arguments in Bush v. Gore, via Oyez.org. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
^ Jump up to: a b Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 772 S2d 1273 Archived June 25, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. (Fla December 11, 2000).
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". The petition presents the following questions: ... and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Last paragraph in Part I.
^ Jump up to: a b "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 ... Last paragraph in Part I.
Jump up ^ Gillman, Howard. The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election. pages 81–82 (University of Chicago Press, 2003).
Jump up ^ "US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors". The quote is the title of Section 5, Title 3.
Jump up ^ "US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors".
Jump up ^ Id. "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy." Last paragraph in Part II.
Jump up ^ Id. "The only disagreement is as to the remedy." Last paragraph in Part II.
^ Jump up to: a b "Scalia and Stevens clash over recount stay in Bush v. Gore". CNN. December 11, 2000. Archived from the original on May 8, 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners" (PDF). "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from implementing an electoral system that gives the votes of similarly situated voters different effect based on the happenstance of the county or district in which those voters live." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part III-A.
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF). "The court below was quite insistent that the counting of ballots must be governed by a single uniform standard: the intent of the voter must control." Paragraph 3 in Argument, Part III-A.
Jump up ^ Id. "...if petitioners mean to say that all votes must be tabulated under a fixed and mechanical standard (e.g., the "two-corner chad rule"), their approach would render unconstitutional the laws of States that hinge the meaning of the ballot on the intent of the voter..." Paragraph 3 in Argument, Part III-A.
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF). "[T]he appropriate remedy for either an Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause violation would not be to cancel all recounts, but rather to order that the recounts be undertaken under a uniform standard." Footnote 28.
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners" (PDF). "By rewriting that statutory scheme—thus arrogating to itself the power to decide the manner in which Florida’s electors are chosen—the Florida Supreme Court substituted its judgment for that of the legislature in violation of Article II. Such a usurpation of constitutionally delegated power defies the Framers’ plan." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part I.
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF). "Even apart from the absurd theory that McPherson requires everything relevant to a state’s process for choosing electors to be packed into a specialized presidential electoral code, the very premise of petitioner’s argument is fatally flawed because the Florida Legislature re-enacted the contest statute in 1999 against the settled background rule that decisions of circuit courts in contest actions are subject to appellate review." Paragraph 5 in Argument, Part I.
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore". Oyez Project. Retrieved January 22, 2011. "Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by 'later arbitrary and disparate treatment,' the per curiam opinion held 7–2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional."
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Concurrence, Rehnquist".
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Breyer".
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Souter".
Jump up ^ Justices Breyer and Souter stated:
It is true that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid the use of a variety of voting mechanisms within a jurisdiction, even though different mechanisms will have different levels of effectiveness in recording voters' intentions; local variety can be justified by concerns about cost, the potential value of innovation, and so on. But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads).
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". Id. 5th paragraph in Part I.
Jump up ^ Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , pp. 184, (Doubleday, New York, NY).
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Stevens".
^ Jump up to: a b Political Staff of the Washington Post, Deadlock: The Inside Story of America's Closest Election, pages 230–234 (Public Affairs 2001). Via Google Books.
Jump up ^ Von, David (2001-02-03). "Anxious Moments In the Final Stretch". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
Jump up ^ Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 Archived June 25, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. (December 22, 2000). Only Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw, in a concurring opinion, disputed that December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law. Justice Shaw had joined the dissenting opinion in Gore v. Harris before the ruling in Bush v. Gore.
Jump up ^ McConnell, Michael. "Two-And-A-Half Cheers for Bush v. Gore" in The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court, page 118 (University of Chicago Press, Cass Sunstein and Richard Epstein Eds. 2001). Via Google Books.
Jump up ^ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore" in The Longest Night: Polemics and Perspectives on Election 2000, page 176 (University of California Press, Arthur Jacobson and Michel Rosenfeld, eds. 2002).
Jump up ^ Berkowitz, Peter and Wittes, Benjamin. "The Lawfulness of the Election Decision: A Reply to Professor Tribe", Villanova Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2004.
^ Jump up to: a b Greene, Abner. "Is There a First Amendment Defense for Bush v. Gore?", 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1643 (2005). Greene points to footnotes 21 and 22 in Gore v. Harris, 772 S2d 1243 (December 8, 2000), as evidence that the Florida Supreme Court thought all recounts had to be completed by December 12, 2008.
Jump up ^ Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing, 531 U.S. 70 (December 4, 2000).
Jump up ^ Weinberg, Louise. [1] in When Courts Decide Elections: The Constitutionality of Bush v. Gore, 82 Boston University Law Review 609 (2002), p. 33.
In Bush v. Gore, on the contrary, the Court actively prevented the completion of a halted state recount, never having ruled on the merits either of the challenge or the election and never having adjudicated the validity of Bush's certification or Gore's request for a recount. Instead, the Court selected the next President of the United States in the absence of a completed election—the ultimate political act. A meaningful remand in Bush v. Gore, or completing the election under the Court's own supervision, would have preserved the Constitution from this assault.
Jump up ^ Fliter, John. "Review of The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right". Archived from the original on May 16, 2006.
^ Jump up to: a b Charles L. Zelden, Bush v. Gore: Exposing the Hidden Crisis of American Democracy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008) ISBN 0-7006-1593-8.
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion". (6th paragraph from end of Part II-B).
Jump up ^ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 17, 2005. ... it’s important to remember that overly broad holdings can be worse than those that are too narrow. Broad holdings may effectively decide future cases that are factually dissimilar in ways that should be legally distinguished.
Jump up ^ Spillenger, Clyde. "Supreme court fails to argue recount ruling". UCLA Today. Archived from the original on December 1, 2008. Retrieved October 28, 2006. This observation is the very antithesis of the rule of law.
Jump up ^ "Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2008)".
Jump up ^ "Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2006)".
Jump up ^ "Bennett v. Mollis, 590 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.R.I. 2008)".
Jump up ^ "State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 588 F. Supp. 2d 828 (S.D. Ohio 2008)".
Jump up ^ "ACLU v. Santillanes, 506 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D.N.M. 2007)".
^ Jump up to: a b Dershowitz, Alan. Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, pages 174 and 198 (Oxford U. Press 2001).
Jump up ^ Rotunda, Ronald. "Yet Another Article on Bush v. Gore", Ohio State Law Journal, Volume 64, page 283 (2003).
Jump up ^ Neumann, Richard K., Jr. (2003). "Conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore: Did some justices vote illegally?". The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics.
Jump up ^ Steven Foster, The Judiciary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-2262-4, p. 80.
Jump up ^ Jackson, Brooks (December 12, 2000). "Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest". CNN. Archived from the original on December 1, 2007.
Jump up ^ Examining the Vote: the Overview", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
Jump up ^ Keating, Dan (November 12, 2001). "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush". The Washington Post.
Jump up ^ "Just US Law". Justia. Retrieved 2015-04-14.
Jump up ^ Fessenden, Ford. "Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
Jump up ^ Fessenden, Ford. "How the Consortium of News Organizations Conducted the Ballot Review", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore, On Application for Stay, Majority Opinion" (PDF). Second last paragraph of Scalia's concurrence.
^ Jump up to: a b Raskin, Jamin (March 2001). "Bandits in Black Robes". Washington Monthly. Archived from the original on October 19, 2006. Retrieved October 28, 2006. But in Bush v. Gore, the Rehnquist majority did not even ask, much less explain, how Bush was personally injured by the hypothetical possibility that anonymous third-party citizens might have their ballots counted differently in Florida's presidential election.
Jump up ^ Fried, Charles. "An Unreasonable Reaction to a Reasonable Decision" in Bush V. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy, page 12 (Yale University Press, Bruce Ackerman ed. 2002): "The outrage against the stay by 673 law professors is, to say the least, overwrought. If the decision on the merits was justified, the stay becomes irrelevant. Yes, it did shut down the counting three and a half days earlier, but by hypothesis that counting was being done in an unconstitutional way."
Jump up ^ Tribe, Laurence H., "The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore". George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-33; Harvard Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 72. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=431080
Jump up ^ Stone, Geoffrey R. (2001). "Equal Protection? The Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. Gore".
Jump up ^ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore". SSRN 267874  .
Jump up ^ The dissent by Justice Stevens in Bush v. Gore stated as follows: "What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Jump up ^ Glanton, Dahleen (April 27, 2013). "O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore". Chicago Tribune.
External links[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Bush v. Gore
After Bush v. Gore by Retro Report
Tony Sutin: Presidential Election Law
Peter Berkowitz & Benjamin Wittes: "The Lawfulness of the Election Decision"
Vincent Bugliosi. "None Dare Call It Treason". thenation.com. The Nation.
Adam Cohen: "Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?", Editorial Observer, The New York Times, August 15, 2006.
Complete text and Audio of USSC Oral Arguments – Bush v. Gore
Video highlight of Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells opening Gore v. Harris argument on November 20, 2000
Video highlights of November 20, 2000, and December 7, 2000, oral arguments in Gore v. Harris in front of Florida Supreme Court
[show]
v
t
e
(1996 ←) United States presidential election, 2000 (→ 2004)
General election results
Florida results
Republican Party
Convention
Primaries
Nominee George W. Bush (campaign)
VP nominee Dick Cheney
Candidates Lamar Alexander
Gary Bauer
Pat Buchanan (campaign)
Herman Cain
Elizabeth Dole
Jack Fellure
Steve Forbes
Orrin Hatch
John Kasich (campaign)
Alan Keyes (campaign)
Andy Martin
John McCain (campaign)
Dan Quayle
Bob Smith
Democratic Party
Convention
Primaries
Nominee Al Gore (campaign)
VP nominee Joe Lieberman
Candidates Bill Bradley (campaign)
Lyndon LaRouche
Constitution Party
Convention
Nominee Howard Phillips
VP nominee Curtis Frazier
Candidates Herb Titus
Green Party
Convention
Nominee Ralph Nader (campaign)
VP nominee Winona LaDuke
Candidates Jello Biafra
Stephen Gaskin
Joel Kovel
Libertarian Party
Convention
Nominee Harry Browne (campaign)
VP nominee Art Olivier
Candidates Jacob Hornberger
Barry Hess
L. Neil Smith
Reform Party
Primaries
Nominee Pat Buchanan (campaign)
VP nominee Ezola B. Foster
Candidates John Hagelin
Donald Trump (campaign)
Natural Law Party
Nominee John Hagelin
VP nominee Nat Goldhaber
Prohibition Party
Nominee Earl Dodge
VP nominee W. Dean Watkins
Socialist Party
Nominee David McReynolds
VP nominee Mary Cal Hollis
Socialist Workers Party
Nominee James Harris
VP nominee Margaret Trowe
Workers World Party
Nominee Monica Moorehead
VP nominee Gloria La Riva
Independent
Cathy Gordon Brown
Charles E. Collins
Isabell Masters
Joe Schriner
[show]
Florida election recount and legal proceedings
Key figures
Katherine Harris
Jeb Bush
David Boies
Theodore Olson
James Baker
Ron Klain
Warren Christopher
Michael Whouley
Benjamin Ginsberg
Bob Butterworth
Joe Allbaugh
Mac Stipanovich
Craig Waters
Theresa LePore
Carol Roberts
Election day
Florida Central Voter File (scrub list)
Volusia error
Chad
Butterfly ballot
Aftermath and
legal proceedings
Florida election recount
Brooks Brothers riot
Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris (Harris I)
Gore v. Harris (Harris II)
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
Bush v. Gore
Films
Recount (2008)
Bush Family Fortunes (2004)
Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election (2002)
Other 2000 elections
House
Senate
Gubernatorial
[show]
v
t
e
George W. Bush
43rd President of the United States (2001–2009)
46th Governor of Texas (1995–2000)
Born July 6, 1946
Presidency
First inauguration
Second inauguration
First term
Second term
Domestic policy
Legislation and programs
Economic policy
Foreign policy
International trips
Bush Doctrine
War in Afghanistan
Iraq War
Status of Forces Agreement
Patriot Act
No Child Left Behind Act
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
USA Freedom Corps
Department of Homeland Security
Space policy
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty
"War on Terror"
President's Council on Service and Civic Participation
award
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Email controversy
Judicial appointments
Supreme Court
controversies
Cabinet
Pardons
Impeachment efforts
Life
Presidential library
Early life
Military service controversy (Killian documents controversy and authenticity issues)
Professional life
Governorship of Texas
Prairie Chapel Ranch
Bush compound
Clinton Bush Haiti Fund
Speeches
Axis of evil
Mission Accomplished
State of the Union address
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Elections
United States House of Representatives elections, 1978
Texas gubernatorial election 1994
1998
Presidential campaign 2000
2004
Republican Party presidential primaries, 2000
2004
Republican National Convention 2000
2004
United States presidential election, 2000
Bush v. Gore
United States presidential election, 2004
Public image
Bushisms
Nicknames
As the subject of books and films
Fictionalized portrayals
Miss Me Yet?
Books
A Charge to Keep (1999)
Decision Points (2010)
41: A Portrait of My Father (2014)
Portraits of Courage (2017)
Family
Laura Bush (wife)
Barbara Pierce Bush (daughter)
Jenna Bush Hager (daughter)
George H. W. Bush (father
presidency)
Barbara Bush (mother)
Jeb Bush (brother)
Neil Bush (brother)
Marvin Bush (brother)
Dorothy Bush Koch (sister)
Prescott Bush (grandfather)
George P. Bush (nephew)
Barney (dog)
Miss Beazley (dog)
India (cat)
Spot Fetcher (dog)
← Bill Clinton
Barack Obama →
Book
Category
[show]
v
t
e
Al Gore
45th Vice President of the United States (1993–2001)
U.S. Senator from Tennessee (1985–1993)
U.S. Representative from Tennessee (1977–1985)
Born (1948-03-31)March 31, 1948
Politics
Electoral history
House elections, 1976
1978
1980
1982
Atari Democrat
Senate elections, 1984
1990
Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988
1988 presidential campaign
1992 Democratic National Convention
1992 presidential election
1996 Democratic National Convention
1996 presidential election
Vice presidency
2000 Democratic National Convention
2000 presidential election
2000 presidential campaign
Bush v. Gore
Environment
Global Marshall Plan
Environmental activism
Alliance for Climate Protection
An Inconvenient Truth
"I Need to Wake Up"
Live Earth
An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power
Technology
Role in information technology
High Performance Computing Act of 1991
National Information Infrastructure
Information superhighway
The Superhighway Summit
24 Hours in Cyberspace
NetDay
Digital Earth
Current TV
Recognition
Awards and honors
Books
Earth in the Balance
An Inconvenient Truth
The Assault on Reason
Our Choice
Family
Tipper Gore (wife, separated)
Karenna Gore (daughter)
Kristin Gore (daughter)
Albert Gore Sr. (father)
Pauline LaFon Gore (mother)
[hide]
v
t
e
United States Fourteenth Amendment case law
[show]
Citizenship Clause
Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
Elk v. Wilkins (1884)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perez v. Brownell (1958)
Saenz v. Roe (1964)
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Rogers v. Bellei (1971)
[show]
Due Process Clause
Economic substantive
due process
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Coppage v. Kansas (1915)
Adams v. Tanner (1917)
Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)
Right to privacy
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Doe v. Bolton (1973)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)
Right to abortion
United States v. Vuitch (1971)
Doe v. Bolton (1973)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
H. L. v. Matheson (1981)
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England (2006)
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)
Civil rights liability
under Section 1983
Monroe v. Pape (1961)
McNeese v. Board of Educ. (1963)
Pierson v. Ray (1967)
Jenkins v. McKeithen (1969)
Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974)
Wood v. Strickland (1975)
O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975)
Paul v. Davis (1976)
Imbler v. Pachtman (1976)
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York (1978)
Procunier v. Navarette (1978)
Owen v. City of Independence (1980)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Felder v. Casey (1988)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989)
Gonzaga University v. Doe (2002)
Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009)
Los Angeles County v. Humphries (2010)
Connick v. Thompson (2011)
Other
Holden v. Hardy (1898)
Muller v. Oregon (1908)
Buck v. Bell (1927)
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
In re Winship (1971)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Troxel v. Granville (2000)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
[show]
Equal Protection Clause
United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
Pace v. Alabama (1883)
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Buchanan v. Warley (1917)
Lum v. Rice (1927)
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
Perez v. Sharp (1948)
Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. (1948)
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950)
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Hernandez v. Texas (1954)
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (1964)
Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson (1971)
Reed v. Reed (1971)
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Milliken v. Bradley (1974)
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
Romer v. Evans (1996)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_v._Gore&oldid=819855817"
Categories:
United States equal protection case law
United States presidential election in Florida, 2000
2000 in United States case law
George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000
Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
United States elections case law
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
Use mdy dates from October 2012
Articles containing Latin-language text
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
Deutsch
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
日本語
Norsk
Српски / srpski
Edit links
This page was last edited on 11 January 2018, at 17:27.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

value: i

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

values: United States presidential election, 2000

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: th

attrs: colspan class style

values: text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;background-color: #99c0ff; padding: 0.2em; line-height:1.3em; font-style: italic

value: tr

values: Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

value: b

value: td

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 531

values:
/wiki/Florida_Circuit_Courts
mw-redirect
Florida Circuit Courts

values: margin:0; padding:0.1em 0.5em; text-align:center; line-height:1.3em;

values: Article Two of the United States Constitution

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
infobox scotus
width:22em;line-height: 1.3em

values: 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida

values: Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board

values:
/wiki/Voting_machines
mw-redirect
Voting machines

values:
/wiki/Plurality_voting_system
mw-redirect
Plurality voting system

values: Edit section: Stay of the Florida recount

values:
/wiki/Oral_argument
mw-redirect
Oral argument

values:
/wiki/United_States_Solicitor_General
mw-redirect
United States Solicitor General

values: Edit section: Issues considered by the Court

values:
/wiki/Republican_Party_(U.S.)
mw-redirect
Republican Party (U.S.)

values:
/wiki/Washington_D.C.
mw-redirect
Washington D.C.

values: Edit section: The critical remedial issue

values: Edit section: Limitation to present circumstances

values: Edit section: Accusation of partisanship or conflict of interest

values: Edit section: Recount by media organizations

values:
/wiki/Florida_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
Florida Supreme Court

values:
/wiki/New_York_Times
mw-redirect
New York Times

values:
nofollow
external free
http://ssrn.com/abstract=431080

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=267874

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
http://www.insidebushvgore.com/
external text

values: Template:United States presidential election, 2000

values: Template talk:United States presidential election, 2000

values: United States presidential election, 1996

values: United States presidential election, 2004

values: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2000

values: George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000

values: Pat Buchanan presidential campaign, 2000

values: Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2000

values: Bill Bradley presidential campaign, 2000

values: Harry Browne presidential campaign, 2000

values: Reform Party of the United States of America

values: Reform Party presidential primaries, 2000

values: Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000

values: James Harris (Socialist Workers Party politician)

values:
/wiki/Florida_election_recount
mw-redirect
Florida election recount

values: Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

values: Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-subgroup

values: United States House of Representatives elections, 2000

values: United States gubernatorial elections, 2000

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States

values: Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration

values: List of George W. Bush legislation and programs

values: Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

values: Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

values: List of international presidential trips made by George W. Bush

values: United States Department of Homeland Security

values: Space policy of the George W. Bush administration

values: List of federal judges appointed by George W. Bush

values: George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies

values:
/wiki/George_W._Bush_Cabinet
mw-redirect
George W. Bush Cabinet

values: List of people pardoned by George W. Bush

values:
navbox-image
7
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: George W. Bush military service controversy

values:
/wiki/State_of_the_Union_address
mw-redirect
State of the Union address

values: George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004

values: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004

values: List of nicknames used by George W. Bush

values: List of books and films about George W. Bush

values: Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush

values: List of Vice Presidents of the United States

values: List of United States Senators from Tennessee

values: United States House of Representatives elections, 1976

values: United States House of Representatives elections, 1980

values: United States House of Representatives elections, 1982

values: United States Senate elections, 1990 and 1991

values: United States presidential election, 1992

values:
navbox-image
6
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values:
/wiki/Al_Gore_and_the_environment
mw-redirect
Al Gore and the environment

values:
/wiki/Alliance_for_Climate_Protection
mw-redirect
Alliance for Climate Protection

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England

values:
/wiki/Second_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
mw-redirect
Second Enforcement Act of 1871

values: McNeese v. Board of Educ. (page does not exist)

values: Jenkins v. McKeithen (page does not exist)

values: Wood v. Strickland (page does not exist)

values: Procunier v. Navarette (page does not exist)

values: Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

values: Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee

values:
/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_v._Parrish
mw-redirect
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

values: Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.

values: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

values: nowraplinks collapsible uncollapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:United States equal protection case law

values: Category:United States presidential election in Florida, 2000

values: Category:George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000

values: Category:Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000

values: Category:United States Supreme Court cases

values: Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court

values: Category:United States elections case law

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Use mdy dates from October 2012

values: Category:Articles containing Latin-language text

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: ブッシュ対ゴア事件 – Japanese

values: Буш против Гора – Serbian

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Bush_v_Gore rootpage-Bush_v_Gore skin-vector action-view


text:
Will You Love Me Tomorrow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
"Will You Love Me Tomorrow"
Single by The Shirelles
from the album Tonight's the Night
B-side
"Boys"
Released
November 1960 (US)
1961 (UK)
Format
Vinyl record (7" 45 RPM)
Recorded
1960
Bell Sound Studios, New York, New York, U.S.
Genre
R&B
Length
2:43
Label
Scepter
Songwriter(s)
Gerry Goffin
Carole King
Producer(s)
Luther Dixon
The Shirelles singles chronology
"Tonight's the Night"
(1960) "Will You Love Me Tomorrow"
(1960) "Dedicated to the One I Love"
(1961)
"Tonight's the Night"
(1960) "'Will You Love Me Tomorrow'"
(1960) "Dedicated to the One I Love"
(1961)
"Will You Love Me Tomorrow", also known as "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow", is a song written by Gerry Goffin and Carole King. It was originally recorded in 1960 by the Shirelles, who took their single to number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The song is also notable for being the first song by a black all-girl group to reach number one in the United States.[1] It has since been recorded by many artists over the years, including a 1971 version by co-writer Carole King.
Contents
[hide]
1 The Shirelles' version
1.1 Background
1.2 Reception
1.3 Answer songs
2 Carole King version
2.1 Background
2.2 Personnel
3 Other versions
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
The Shirelles' version[edit]
Background[edit]
In 1960, the American girl group the Shirelles released the first version of the song as Scepter single 1211, with "Boys" on the B-side. The single's first pressing was labelled simply "Tomorrow", then lengthened later. When first presented with the song, lead singer Shirley Owens (later known as Shirley Alston-Reeves) did not want to record it, because she thought it was "too country." She relented after a string arrangement was added. However, Owens recalled on Jim Parsons' syndicated oldies radio program, Shake Rattle Showtime, that some radio stations had banned the record because they had felt the lyrics were too sexually charged. The song is in AABA form.[2]
Reception[edit]
This version of the song, with session musicians Paul Griffin on piano and Gary Chester on drums, as of 2009 was ranked as the 162nd greatest song of all time, as well as the best song of 1960, by Acclaimed Music.[3] It was ranked at #126 among Rolling Stone 's list of The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Billboard named the song #3 on their list of 100 Greatest Girl Group Songs of All Time.[4]
The song later appeared on the soundtracks of Michael Apted's Stardust and Emile Ardolino's Dirty Dancing.
Answer songs[edit]
Bertell Dache, a black demo singer for the Brill Building songwriters, recorded an answer song entitled "Not just Tomorrow, But Always".[5] It has been claimed by some historians that Dache was a pseudonym for Epic recording artist Tony Orlando[citation needed], whose recording of the original song had not been released as Don Kirshner thought the lyric was convincing only as sung by a woman. However, an ad for United Artists Records which appeared in Billboard during 1961 featured a photo of the singer which indicated that Dache was not Tony Orlando.[citation needed]
The Satintones, an early Motown group, also recorded an answer song called "Tomorrow and Always," which used the same melody as the original but initially neglected to credit King and Goffin. Following a threat of litigation, later pressings of the record included proper credit. Eventually, it was withdrawn and replaced with a different song. The Satintones' versions are included in the box set The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 1: 1959–1961.
Carole King version[edit]
Background[edit]
In 1971 Carole King, the co-writer of the song, recorded a version of "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" for her landmark studio album Tapestry, with Joni Mitchell and James Taylor on background vocals. King's version of the song was taken at a considerably slower tempo and with a more contemplative, melancholy feel than in the Shirelles original recording. It gained considerable album-oriented rock airplay due to the large-scale commercial success of the album.
The song became a feature of King's live shows. Taylor recreated his part during their joint arena-based Troubadour Reunion Tour of 2010.
In the 2013 Broadway Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, the song is featured in part four times: once during its writing, once during King recording a demo of it, then with the Shirelles performing it, and then King singing and playing it later during an especially bad time in her marriage with Goffin. No other song is featured as frequently in the musical.
Personnel[edit]
Carole King – piano, vocals
Additional musicians
Danny "Kootch" Kortchmar – acoustic guitar
Russ Kunkel – drums
Charles "Charlie" Larkey – bass guitar
Joni Mitchell – background vocals
James Taylor – acoustic guitar, backing vocals
Other versions[edit]
Dusty Springfield recorded the song for her 1964 debut solo album A Girl Called Dusty. She also recorded a version with French lyrics entitled Demain tu peux changer for her 1965 EP Mademoiselle Dusty, which included four songs she had previously recorded in English.
Brenda Lee released her version in 1961 as a single.
Helen Shapiro recorded a version for her 1962 album 'Tops' with Me.
Little Eva released a version on her 1962 album Llllloco-Motion.
Cher recorded a version for her 1966 album Chér.
Jackie DeShannon recorded a version for her 1966 album Are You Ready for This?.
Sandy Posey recorded the song for her 1968 album Looking at You.
The Four Seasons had a number 24 hit with the song on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1968.
Linda Ronstadt released a version on her 1970 album, Silk Purse. It reached number 98 in Cash Box and (Bubbled Under to) number 111 in Billboard.
Roberta Flack's version hit number 76 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1972 as "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow".
Melanie Safka reached number 82 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1973 and reached the top 40 in the United Kingdom in 1974.
Jody Miller made the charts[vague] with a remake of the song in 1975.
Morningside Drive released a dance version of the song in 1975, which reached number 33 on the Billboard Hot 100.
Dana Valery recorded a dance version that hit number 95 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1976.
Dave Mason had a number 39 hit on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1978 with his remake. It was his final top 40 hit on that chart.
Laura Nyro recorded a version which was released on her posthumous 2001 album Angel In the Dark.
Laura Branigan recorded a cover of the song on her 1984 album Self Control.
Cilla Black recorded a cover for her 1993 studio album Through the Years (Cilla Black album).
The Bee Gees recorded a cover for the Carole King tribute album Tapestry Revisited: A Tribute to Carole King in 1995.
Twiggy recorded a version of the song sometime in the Eighties, and it was finally released in 2003 on her compilation album Midnight Blue.
Inger Marie Gundersen recorded a cover of the song on her 2004 album Make This Moment [6]
Amy Winehouse recorded a cover of the song in 2004 for the soundtrack to Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film), and a further version that was released in 2011 on her posthumous album Lioness: Hidden Treasures.
Leslie Grace released a bachata version in 2012 which became her debut single. Her version peaked at number one on the Billboard Tropical Songs chart and number one on the Latin Airplay chart, becoming the youngest female artist to do so.[7]
Kamasi Washington recorded a cover of the song in 2018 for his companion EP to his album Heaven and Earth (album).
See also[edit]
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1961 (U.S.)
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Bronson, Fred, The Billboard Book of Number One Hits, Billboard Books, 1992
Jump up ^ Covach, John (2005), "Form in Rock Music: A Primer", in Stein, Deborah, Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press, p.70, ISBN 0-19-517010-5.
Jump up ^ "Acclaimed Music Top 3000 songs". Acclaimedmusic.net. 27 May 2009.
Jump up ^ "100 Greatest Girl Group Songs of All Time: Critics' Picks". Billboard. Retrieved July 11, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Will You Love Me Tomorrow by The Shirelles Songfacts". Songfacts.com. Retrieved 2016-09-26.
Jump up ^ spotify
Jump up ^ Ramirez, Rauly (2012-10-16). "Leslie Grace Youngest Woman To Top Latin Airplay Chart". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved 2012-10-21.
External links[edit]
Lyrics of this song at MetroLyrics
show
v
t
e
The Shirelles
Shirley Owens
Doris Coley
Addie Harris
Beverly Lee
Albums
Tonight's the Night
Baby It's You
Foolish Little Girl
Singles
"Tonight's the Night"
"Will You Love Me Tomorrow"
"Dedicated to the One I Love"
"Mama Said"
"Big John (Ain't You Gonna Marry Me)"
"Baby It's You"
"Soldier Boy"
"Welcome Home, Baby"
"Everybody Loves a Lover"
"Foolish Little Girl"
Related topics
"Boys"
Baby It's You! The Musical
Book:The Shirelles
show
v
t
e
The Four Seasons
Frankie Valli
Tommy DeVito
Bob Gaudio
Nick Massi
Charles Calello
Joe Long
Gerry Polci
Albums
Sherry & 11 Others (1962)
The 4 Seasons Greetings (1962)
Big Girls Don't Cry and Twelve Others (1963)
The 4 Seasons Sing Ain't That a Shame and 11 Others (1963)
Golden Hits of the 4 Seasons (1963)
Dawn (1964)
Rag Doll (1964)
Born to Wonder (1964)
Stay and Other Great Hits (1964)
4 Seasons Entertain You (1965)
The 4 Seasons Sing Big Hits by Burt Bacharach... Hal David... Bob Dylan (1965)
Working My Way Back to You and More Great New Hits (1966)
Lets Hang On (1966)
On Stage with The Four Seasons (1965)
New Gold Hits (1967)
Edizione D'Oro (Gold Edition) (1968)
The Genuine Imitation Life Gazette (1969)
Half and Half (1970)
Chameleon (1972)
Who Loves You (1975)
Helicon (1977)
The Very Best of Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons (2002)
Singles
"Bermuda"
"Sherry"
"Big Girls Don't Cry"
"Santa Claus Is Coming to Town"
"Walk Like a Man"
"Ain't That a Shame"
"Candy Girl"
"New Mexican Rose"
"Dawn (Go Away)"
"Stay"
"Ronnie"
"Alone (Why Must I Be Alone)"
"Rag Doll"
"Silence Is Golden"
"Save It for Me"
"Sincerely"
"Big Man in Town"
"I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus"
"Bye, Bye, Baby (Baby Goodbye)"
"Since I Don't Have You"
"Girl Come Running"
"The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine (Anymore)"
"Let's Hang On!"
"Don't Think Twice"
"Working My Way Back to You"
"Opus 17 (Don't You Worry 'bout Me)"
"On the Good Ship Lollipop"
"I've Got You Under My Skin"
"The Proud One"
"Tell It to the Rain"
"Beggin'"
"Can't Take My Eyes Off You"
"C'mon Marianne"
"Lonesome Road"
"Watch the Flowers Grow"
"Will You Love Me Tomorrow"
"My Eyes Adored You"
"Our Day Will Come"
"Who Loves You"
"December, 1963 (Oh, What a Night)"
"Silver Star"
"Grease"
Related topics
Discography
Members
Albums
Songs
The Four Lovers
The Wonder Who?
Bob Crewe
"Ces soirées-là"
Jersey Boys: Original Broadway Cast Recording
Jersey Boys (musical)
Jersey Boys (film)
Book:The Four Seasons
show
v
t
e
Carole King
Studio albums
Writer
Tapestry
Music
Rhymes & Reasons
Fantasy
Wrap Around Joy
Thoroughbred
Simple Things
Welcome Home
Touch the Sky
Pearls: Songs of Goffin and King
One to One
Speeding Time
City Streets
Colour of Your Dreams
Love Makes the World
Compilations
Her Greatest Hits: Songs of Long Ago
The Legendary Demos
Live albums
In Concert
The Carnegie Hall Concert: June 18, 1971
The Living Room Tour
Live at the Troubadour
Other albums
A Holiday Carole
Singles
"It Might as Well Rain Until September"
"It's Too Late"/"I Feel the Earth Move"
"So Far Away"/"Smackwater Jack"
"You've Got a Friend"/"Beautiful" (Scandinavia only)
"Sweet Seasons"
"Been to Canaan"
"Jazzman"
"Nightingale"
"Only Love Is Real"
"One Fine Day"
"Now and Forever"
Other songs
"Wasn't Born to Follow"
"Goin' Back
"I Can't Hear You No More"
"Up on the Roof"
"Where You Lead"
"Will You Love Me Tomorrow"
"It's Going to Take Some Time"
"Some Kind of Wonderful"
"(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman"
Related articles
Discography
Troubadour Reunion Tour
A Natural Woman: A Memoir
Tapestry Revisited: A Tribute to Carole King
Beautiful: The Carole King Musical
Book
Category
show
v
t
e
Dave Mason
Studio albums
1967 Mr. Fantasy (With Traffic)
1968 Traffic (With Traffic)
1969 Last Exit (With Traffic)
1970 Alone Together
1971 Dave Mason & Cass Elliot
1972 Headkeeper
1973 It's Like You Never Left
1974 Dave Mason
1975 Split Coconut
1977 Let It Flow
1978 Mariposa De Oro
1980 Old Crest on a New Wave
1987 Two Hearts
1987 Some Assembly Required
2008 26 Letters – 12 Notes
2014 Future's Past
Live albums
1971 Welcome to the Canteen (With Traffic)
1973 Dave Mason Is Alive
1976 Certified Live
1999 Live: 40,000 Headmen Tour (w/ Jim Capaldi)
2002 Live at Perkins' Palace (originally recorded 1981)
2002 Dave Mason: Live at Sunrise
2007 XM Live
Compilations
1972 Scrapbook
1974 The Best of Dave Mason
1975 At His Best
1978 The Very Best of Dave Mason
1981 The Best of Dave Mason
1995 Long Lost Friend: The Very Best of Dave Mason
1999 Ultimate Collection
2006 The Definitive Collection
2016 The Columbia Years: The Definitive Anthology
Singles
1968 "Just for You" b/w "Little Woman"
1970 "Only You Know and I Know" US #42
1970 "Satin Red and Black Velvet Woman" US #97 (was only a 45 rpm B-side until it was released on the Ultimate Collection CD in 1999)
1972 "To Be Free" US #121
1977 "So High (Rock Me Baby and Roll Me Away)" US #89
1977 "We Just Disagree" US No. 12, US AC No. 19
1978 "Mystic Traveller"
1978 "Don't It Make You Wonder"
1978 "Let It Go, Let It Flow" US No. 45
1978 "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?" US No. 39
1980 "Save Me" (with Michael Jackson) US No. 71
1987 "Something In The Heart" US Mainstream Rock No. 24
1988 "Dreams I Dream" (duet with Phoebe Snow) US AC No. 11
Other Notable Appearances
1968 Electric Ladyland
1968 Beggars Banquet
1969 Lily the Pink
1970 All Things Must Pass
1970 On Tour with Eric Clapton
1971 Motel Shot
1971 Songs for Beginners
1972 Graham Nash David Crosby
1972 Oh How We Danced
1974 Wild Tales
1974 Phoebe Snow
1975 Venus and Mars
1976 You Can't Argue with a Sick Mind]]
1978 Thoroughfare Gap
1979 Gimme Some Neck
1979 Skatetown, U.S.A.
1983 Airborne
1995 Time
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_You_Love_Me_Tomorrow&oldid=849097380"
Categories:
1960 songs
1961 singles
1968 singles
Carole King songs
The Shirelles songs
Linda Ronstadt songs
Amy Winehouse songs
Melanie Safka songs
Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles
Billboard Tropical Songs number-one singles
Songs with lyrics by Gerry Goffin
Songs written by Carole King
Bachata songs
Scepter Records singles
1960 singles
2012 singles
Pop standards
Top Stop Music singles
Song recordings produced by Bill Szymczyk
Hidden categories:
Articles needing additional references from September 2016
All articles needing additional references
Use mdy dates from July 2011
Articles with hAudio microformats
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from February 2018
All Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from September 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Русский
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
5 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 6 July 2018, at 14:14 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

values: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

value: span

value: small

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Refimprove

values: Tonight's the Night (The Shirelles album)

values:
/wiki/Gramophone_record
mw-redirect
Gramophone record

values: Tonight's the Night (The Shirelles song)

values: width: 33%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; padding: .2em .1em .2em 0;

values: width: 33%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; padding:.2em .1em;

values: width: 33%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; padding: .2em 0 .2em .1em;

values: background: transparent; width: 100%; min-width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse;

values: width:33%; padding:.2em .1em .2em 0; text-align: center;

values: width:33%; padding:.2em .1em; text-align: center;

values: width:33%; padding:.2em 0 .2em .1em; text-align: center;

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (February 2018)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Melanie_Safka
mw-redirect
Melanie Safka

values: This information is too vague. (September 2017)

values: Tapestry Revisited: A Tribute to Carole King

values: Midnight Blue (Twiggy album) (page does not exist)

values: Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film)

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.acclaimedmusic.net

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values:
The_Shirelles
fn org
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em

values:
*_Shirley_Owens
*_Doris_Coley
*_Addie_Harris
*_Beverly_Lee

values:
navbox-abovebelow
2
background: #EEEEEE;

values:
row
navbox-group
width:1%;background: #EEEEEE;

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: nowraplinks vcard hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible mw-collapsed

values:
The_Four_Seasons
fn org
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em

values:
*_Frankie_Valli
*_Tommy_DeVito
*_Bob_Gaudio
*_Nick_Massi

*_Charles_Calello
*_Joe_Long
*_Gerry_Polci

values:
/wiki/The_Four_Seasons_Greetings
mw-redirect
The Four Seasons Greetings

values: Big Girls Don't Cry (The Four Seasons song)

values:
/wiki/Santa_Claus_Is_Coming_to_Town
mw-redirect
Santa Claus Is Coming to Town

values: Category:The Four Seasons (band) members

values: Jersey Boys: Original Broadway Cast Recording

values:
Carole_King
fn
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em

values: The Carnegie Hall Concert: June 18, 1971

values: Live at the Troubadour (Carole King and James Taylor)

values: Some Kind of Wonderful (The Drifters song)

values:
/wiki/A_Natural_Woman:_A_Memoir
mw-redirect
A Natural Woman: A Memoir

values:
navbox-abovebelow hlist
2
background: #EEEEEE;

values: nowraplinks vcard collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible mw-collapsed

values: Template talk:Dave Mason (page does not exist)

values:
Dave_Mason
fn
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em

values: The Columbia Years: The Definitive Anthology

values:
/wiki/Save_Me_(Dave_Mason_song)
mw-redirect
Save Me (Dave Mason song)

values:
/wiki/Phoebe_Snow_(musician)
mw-redirect
Phoebe Snow (musician)

values: Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles

values: Category:Billboard Tropical Songs number-one singles

values: Category:Songs with lyrics by Gerry Goffin

values: Category:Song recordings produced by Bill Szymczyk

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from September 2016

values: Category:All articles needing additional references

values: Category:Articles with hAudio microformats

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2018

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles needing clarification

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from September 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Will_You_Love_Me_Tomorrow
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values: Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow (lagu) – Malay

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nl
display: none;

values: ウィル・ユー・ラヴ・ミー・トゥモロー – Japanese

values: Will You Love Me Tomorrow (sang) – Norwegian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-no
display: none;

values: Will You Love Me Tomorrow – Norwegian Nynorsk

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nn
display: none;

values: Will You Love Me Tomorrow – Serbo-Croatian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sh
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sv
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Will_You_Love_Me_Tomorrow rootpage-Will_You_Love_Me_Tomorrow skin-vector action-view