& FREE Returns

Or fastest delivery Friday, July 8. Order within 6 hrs 53 mins

Only 1 left in stock - order soon.

[{"displayPrice":"$29.99","priceAmount":29.99,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"29","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"99","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"VAblnv3cnOKad7%2FLl50zA0fuxBhkRthx%2FhgBYaMDULFCzXLUfgXvOxl5GDbvi%2BnqYJL%2Bd6MDJhDdoeZgvq5WgSC3HHYlNDuxb3xa5E55O8tOKHcckCWSBgh3%2Bkbz%2BjAUPvoOGb1%2BpCucG%2BgwW5DMPJlq00spGDYCLLzZn481JbbrI0%2BLjRG%2BrMrr0W1U676t","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW"},{"displayPrice":"$14.38","priceAmount":14.38,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"14","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"38","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"vR1Awin4FSu3rSzLz8NEhV%2Bkk1jaKTLRd3Zi7%2FNLhBlqfm9Q0mO6W2f4JT2AHKgxbAQGTYUy0tn77OM0SZwNNWUKN6xnm5dnscK5jcgiO7VZ8CsIZv4fD8uyK%2FlLIzQ1%2B0gVpwlU7FWJ3tYWKHyctfOfcufVQd2lrtQXFvi3Dz7mLYt9uYJStWfAZ48fcv3x","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"USED"}]

$$29.99 () Includes selected options. Includes initial monthly payment and selected options. Details

Secure transaction

Ships from

Amazon

Sold by

Khalid's Retail

Details

Ships from

Amazon

Sold by

Khalid's Retail

Return policy: Eligible for Return, Refund or Replacement within 30 days of receipt

Add a gift receipt for easy returns

Get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime

FREE delivery Monday, July 11 if you spend $25 on items shipped by Amazon

Or fastest delivery Friday, July 8. Order within 6 hrs 53 mins

Select delivery location

Used: Good | Details

Sold by Bay State Book Company

Fulfilled by Amazon

Add to List

Added to

Unable to add item to List. Please try again.

Share

Have one to sell?

Sell on Amazon

Other Sellers on Amazon

Added

Not added

$24.83
+ $5.16 shipping

Sold by: fortbc

Added

Not added

$30.00
& FREE Shipping. Details

Sold by: Amazon.com

Flip to back Flip to front

Listen Playing... Paused You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more

See all 2 images

Follow the Author

Howard Gillman

The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election Hardcover – October 15, 2001

by Howard Gillman (Author)

6 ratings

See all formats and editions

Price

New from

Used from

Hardcover

"Please retry"

$29.99

$24.83

$3.84

Paperback

"Please retry"

$25.20

$0.95

Enhance your purchase

The dramatic struggle over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election presented judges with an extraordinary political challenge, as well as a historic political temptation. In The Votes That Counted Howard Gillman offers a comprehensive yet critical assessment of how well courts coped with the competing expectations for impartial justice and favorable partisan results.

Lively and authoritative, the book documents how the participants, the press, the academic community, and the public responded during these tension-filled thirty-six days. Gillman also provides a serious yet accessible overview of the legal strategies and debates-from briefs and oral arguments to final decisions. However, in explaining the behavior of courts, he moves beyond an analysis of law to also take into account the influences of partisanship, judicial ideology, and broader political and historical contexts.

Appropriately, Gillman pays special attention to the judges whose behavior generated the most controversy—the battling justices of the Florida and United States Supreme Courts. After carefully reviewing the arguments for and against their decisions, he concludes that the five justices behind the Bush v. Gore decision acted outside what should be considered the acceptable boundaries of judicial power. Gillman ends with an analysis of why they chose such an unprecedented course of action and an assessment of whether their partisan intervention will have any lasting effect on the Supreme Court's reputation and authority.

Print length

325 pages
Language

English
Publisher

University of Chicago Press
Publication date

October 15, 2001
Dimensions

6 x 1.1 x 9 inches
ISBN-10

0226294072
ISBN-13

978-0226294070
See all details

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

University of Southern California political science professor Gillman (The Constitution Besieged) provides a compact examination followed by careful analysis of the major court actions in the contested aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. His analysis gives equal time to expectations of the moment as well as the longer, more stable perspective of the law, with attention to legal briefs, oral arguments, commentary and final decisions. This close attention to texts of all sides minimizes partisan rationalizations and political spin that filled the media at the time. Each chapter covers a different level of the judicial process, from the first 10 days of initial recount efforts, the first Florida Supreme Court case and the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention to Judge N. Sanders Sauls's trial court, the Florida Supreme Court again and the U.S. Supreme Court's stay and final decision. Significant side suits are covered chronologically, most notably those challenging absentee ballot irregularities and federal cases heard by the 11th Circuit C0urt of Appeals. The final chapter employs a clear, consistent framework to assess the integrity of the judges and justices. Gillman shows that the three unanimous decisions against Gore by the Florida Supreme Court followed established precedent and ruled consistently to include all plausible votes; meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court majority's decision emerges from this careful examination as arbitrary, capricious and partisan. Gillman's developmental framework should provide an valuable comparison with more argumentative books.

From Library Journal

The idea of the judiciary as an impartial guardian of the law receives substantial criticism in Gillman's analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision, which resolved the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Gillman (political science, Univ. of Southern California), the author of several award-winning books on the U.S. Constitution, such as The Constitution Besieged, carefully explains how both Florida state court judges and federal judges fundamentally shaped the postelection dispute through law and judicial politics. Gillman finds that some forms of judicial politics had the illegitimate influence of partisan favoritism, while others were acceptable, although controversial, forms of judicial authority. Gillman's excellent analysis carefully examines the nature of U.S. judicial institutions within a democratic framework and raises the question whether the Bush v. Gore decision will have lasting effects on the reputation and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida courts. This highly recommended book will help citizens understand key implications of this case and will be a welcome addition to all public and academic libraries. Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

College professor Gillman addresses last winter's battle over which votes to count and how to count them as legal history. He opens with a chronology, then reviews each step in the legal process, from Florida's county courts to its supreme court and from federal district court to the U.S. Supreme Court. His analysis takes in applicable law and "judicial politics--the various ways in which judicial ideologies, partisan preferences, public opinion, and larger political and historical contexts shape how judges view the law and decide cases." Based on this thorough analysis, Gillman makes a solid case that, of all the judges who figured in the Bush-Gore controversy, only the Supreme Court Five "made a decision which was consistent with their political preferences but inconsistent with precedent and inconsistent with what would have been predicted given their views in other cases . . . , [a] decision [that] received no support from any judge with presumably different partisan loyalties." Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

From the Inside Flap

The dramatic struggle over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election presented judges with an extraordinary political challenge as well as a historic political temptation. InThe Votes That Counted Howard Gillman offers a comprehensive yet critical assessment of how courts coped with the competing expectations for impartial justice and favorable results.

Lively and authoritative, the book documents how the participants, the press, the academic community, and the public responded during these tension-filled thirty-six days. Gillman also provides a serious yet accessible overview of the legal strategies and debates-from briefs and oral arguments to final decisions. However, in explaining the behavior of courts, he moves beyond an analysis of law to also take into account the influences of partisanship, judicial ideology, and broader political and historical contexts.

Appropriately, Gillman pays special attention to the judges whose behavior generated the most controversy-the battling justices of the Florida and United States Supreme Courts. After carefully reviewing the arguments for and against their decisions, he concludes that the five justices behind the Bush v. Gore decision acted outside what should be considered the acceptable boundaries of judicial power. Gillman ends with an analysis of why they chose such an unprecedented course of action and an assessment of whether their partisan intervention will have any lasting effect on the Supreme Court's reputation and authority.

From the Back Cover

The dramatic struggle over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election presented judges with an extraordinary political challenge as well as a historic political temptation. In The Votes That Counted Howard Gillman offers a comprehensive yet critical assessment of how courts coped with the competing expectations for impartial justice and favorable results.

Lively and authoritative, the book documents how the participants, the press, the academic community, and the public responded during these tension-filled thirty-six days. Gillman also provides a serious yet accessible overview of the legal strategies and debates-from briefs and oral arguments to final decisions. However, in explaining the behavior of courts, he moves beyond an analysis of law to also take into account the influences of partisanship, judicial ideology, and broader political and historical contexts.

Appropriately, Gillman pays special attention to the judges whose behavior generated the most controversy-the battling justices of the Florida and United States Supreme Courts. After carefully reviewing the arguments for and against their decisions, he concludes that the five justices behind the Bush v. Gore decision acted outside what should be considered the acceptable boundaries of judicial power. Gillman ends with an analysis of why they chose such an unprecedented course of action and an assessment of whether their partisan intervention will have any lasting effect on the Supreme Court's reputation and authority.

About the Author

Howard Gillman is a professor of political science and law at the University of Southern California. He is the author of The Constitution Besieged, winner of the Pritchett Award for best book in public law, and editor (with Cornell Clayton) of Supreme Court Decision-Making, also published by the University of Chicago Press.

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ University of Chicago Press; 1st edition (October 15, 2001)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 325 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0226294072
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0226294070
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.31 pounds
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 1.1 x 9 inches

Best Sellers Rank: #4,754,476 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,825 in Courts & Law
- #5,412 in Elections
- #23,175 in U.S. Political Science

Customer Reviews:
6 ratings

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload video

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Howard Gillman

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

5 star		45%
4 star		23%
3 star 0% (0%)		0%
2 star		15%
1 star		17%

How customer reviews and ratings work

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Very good reporting, but poor editing

Reviewed in the United States on May 6, 2003

Verified Purchase

In this book, The Votes that Counted, Howard Gillman does a masterful job of reporting the facts that led up to the dispute, and the chronology of events during the aftermath of the Presidential Election in November, 2000.
Naturally, Gillman focuses on Florida, which was the state of most interest in the election, since its electoral votes would ultimately determine who would reside in the White House.
Gillman is, in my opinion, biased, with an evident fondness of the Democratic Party. There is, of course, nothing wrong with being opiniated, and Gillman does not let this interfere with his reporting of the evident facts.
Gillman's analysis of the election and the subsequent judicial participation is a good one, and certainly does correlate well with the title of the book; he explains well why he feels that the justices of the Supreme Court (all five of them that sided with Bush) determined who the next President of the United States would be.
As I was reading this book, I frequently found that I had to stop and re-read some sentences multiple times in order to understand the meaning; verbs were conjugated improperly, and improper tenses were used. I do not fault the author for these grammatical errors - I fault the editor for failing to catch and correct them.
I found this to be a valuable book, and one worthy of studying carefully as study of the Presidental election of 2000 and judicial intervention in that contest. I gave it four stars rather than five because of what I see as a lack of strong editing.

12 people found this helpful

Helpful

M. A. Devlin

Time to read it again

Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2003

I first ran into this book at my college library and renewed it twice so I could take my time enjoying it. A year later I bought it. I play on reading it again on Spring Break.
Placing the reader inside the legal system so soon after the decision, the author was able to capture the feelings of the justices and judges while the emotions were still in the air.
The only major downfall of this book is the lack of logic expressed by the author several times to support his views. However, in any book in which the author admits a bias, I am inclined to assume there will be a slant to support his view when I read it.
I feel this book is so good, I still give it 5 stars.

4 people found this helpful

Helpful

Andriy D.

Fine academic look at...

Reviewed in the United States on July 14, 2005

the outcome of 2000 election and how America got there. The book chronologically relives the legal battles in courts by pro-Bush and pro-Gore forcs culminating with a 5-4 Supreme Court rulings overturning Florida's Supreme Court. Well written and well researched. If after reading the book you are still sincerely convinced that Bush v. Gore (I) and (II) were legally sound decisions, I would recommend another book: "The Attitudial Model (Revised)" by Segal and Spaeth.

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Marie C. Tayman

Not Biased?

Reviewed in the United States on December 7, 2002

The two stars are given for the acute factual account of the events and their proceedings of the election. And while the author does offer arguments to both sides of the debate (whether the final ruling by the supreme court was partisan or not), he often gives illegitimate reasons for dismissing the argument against partisanship while promoting his that is was a partisan decision. Case in point he dedicates 4 pages to the defense of the majority justices rulings (2 of which are dismissals of the argument) while giving some 25 pages to the opposing argument never offering any sound reasoning as to why it itself may be wrong. There are severe holes in many of his reasonings as he often contradicts himself. I was also astounded by the many grammatical errors and misprints, which is naturally to be blamed on the editor. Overall, the book provides a great summation of events, but the only real bias is that of the author's view, regardless of whether he is correct. Clearly this was a one-sided, unfair analysis of the debate with pitiful attempts to appear judicious and fair-sided in its logic.

7 people found this helpful

Helpful

previacar

All nine justices ruled the way Gore wanted to count ...

Reviewed in the United States on June 22, 2016

All nine justices ruled the way Gore wanted to count the votes was unfair. Why not include that in the book. 9-0 ruling btw.

Helpful