Remember the Bush v. Gore Hullabaloo? The Florida Supreme Court Wants to Hear From You
The Florida Supreme Court is looking for anyone who was a judge, court employee, lawyer, election worker, campaign worker, journalist or otherwise involved in the infamous 2000 Florida recount.
July 29, 2020 at 09:32 AM
4 minute read
It was a time of flaring partisan tensions, hanging chads, agonizing delays and national controversy—or, if you were a Florida Supreme Court staff attorney, it might have been a period spent admonishing prying reporters.
After one of the closest presidential elections in history, nominees Al Gore and George W. Bush looked to Florida's wafer thin margins for answers, triggering a recount. A five-week legal battle ensued as Bush v. Gore came before the state Supreme Court, which ordered a manual recount only to be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That infamous Florida recount was almost 20 years ago. And as its anniversary approaches, the Florida Supreme Court's library and public information office is launching the Election 2000 Memory Project, a permanent archive and educational hub of anecdotes and photos from the time.
The court said it's looking for anyone who was a judge, court employee, lawyer, election worker, campaign worker, journalist or otherwise involved in the dispute between Nov. 7 and Dec. 12, 2000 to upload their recollections and any photographs to this online portal.
|'Grammi's judging'
Among the submissions so far: retired Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente recalled how surreal it was to see "blocks and blocks of satellite trucks and hundreds of reporters from around the world lining the streets in front of our court, day and night, for weeks on end, and hearing our names mentioned on national TV and talk show radio."
Pariente also reflected on how her young grandchild had watched the oral arguments on TV, expecting his grandmother to respond through the screen.
"When then 5-year old Timothy, now 25 and married, [was] asked if he knew what Grammi was doing, he replied matter of factly: 'Grammi's judging,' " Pariente wrote.
Former Justice Major B. Harding said new phone lines were installed to handle the influx of calls to the clerk's and justice's offices.
"My assistant, Helen West, would listen to the many phone messages left on the office phone and pass along the calls that were personal," Harding wrote. "She also laughed and told me that she was not old enough to listen to some of the messages left on the office calls."
Then-Supreme Court staff attorney Susan O'Halloran recalled being perturbed one night when a New York Times reporter somehow tracked down her home phone number—before that was an easy thing to do on the internet.
"He wanted me to give him inside information on my justice's thoughts about the case and said he wouldn't reveal me as a source," O'Halloran said. "I gave the reporter a quick lesson on judicial staff and legal ethics and asked that he not call again."
News agencies had established "temporary headquarters" outside the courthouse, the way Justice Harding's then-secretary Helen West remembers it.
"Everything could be an item for the news. 'Stay away from windows.' 'Enter and leave courthouse at back door.' 'Do NOT discuss ANYTHING Bush or Gore," West wrote.
The deadline for submissions to the project is Aug. 31.
"Your stories and experiences are valuable historical insights to that time and place," a press release from the court's public information officer Craig Waters said. "What do you remember from that time: increased workload, teamwork and camaraderie, late nights, disrupted routines, the distraction of Florida's recounts constantly on TV news? What memories do you have about how you felt during the chaos of the time? What was the atmosphere like in your life or at your office? Did you walk around and take pictures? Did you meet a news reporter? Did you see something interesting, funny or unusual?"
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShareholder Claims Next Science Sold Risky Product Despite Knowing the Dangers
4 minute readCorporate Disclosure Law Enjoys ‘Presumption of Constitutionality,’ Feds Tell Justices
Florida’s Civil Procedure Rules: Attorneys Foresee More Settlements Amid Time Challenges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
- 2To Speed Criminal Discovery, NY Bill Proposes Police-to-Prosecutor Pipeline For Records
- 3Merchan Rejects Trump's Bid to Delay Manhattan Sentencing
- 4High-Low Settlement Agreement 'Does Not Alone Establish Bias:' State High Court Affirms $20M Med Mal Verdict
- 5NYAG Preparing to Withdraw From Defense of Four Correction Officers' Federal Lawsuits
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250