“Bush v. Gore” means different things to different people. To some it is a 2000 presidential contest during which the winner received fewer voters than the loser and during which the election outcome was not “decided” until more than a month after the election. Some at the time (and some today) saw the election as “stolen.” To others it is a still highly controversial Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) that stopped an ongoing recount in Florida on the grounds that the different standards(or lack thereof) for ascertaining voter intent in different parts of the state violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that a statewide recount could not be conducted fast enough to offer Florida the ability to take advantage of a federal “safe harbor” deadline for disputed presidential outcomes. And many see “Bush v. Gore” as a poster child for problematic U.S. election administration practices, including partisan and localized control of the voting process, inexperienced election officials and polling place workers; and an absence of validated information of who was eligible to vote, uniform ballot formats, uniform technology for recording the vote, and uniform standards for recount practices. In Mark Braden’s apt phrasing, the Florida litigation revealed the “soft underbelly of American elections” and cast doubt on their legitimacy.