It was an election unprecedented in American history. A look back at — Bush v. Gore, one year later

While millions of Americans are headed for the polls today to cast their vote for candidates — from governors to congressmen to city councilmen — there will be no punch marks or levers pulled for presidential candidates this year.

One year after one of the most contested presidential elections in history, few Americans seem to remember the turmoil of Bush v. Gore.

It was an election many analysts said would taint the new president with illegitimacy and contaminate the Supreme Court with partisanship. But after the shock and anger stemming from the attacks on Sept. 11, America has become a united, pat-riotic country proud of its political institutions and leader, President George W. Bush.

"I think the irony is that an election that seemed fated to give us a president who would be deemed illegitimate is virtually forgotten," noted politics professor Fred Greenstein, an expert on the American presidency. "Even before Sept. 11, Bush was accepted by the bulk of the public and all of the nation's major political actors."

The Bush presidency has garnered support from both Republicans and Democrats. Politicians who once bickered over social security and taxes are cooperating on some issues and at least refraining from criticizing the Bush Administration.

"Since [Sept. 11] he has been the beneficiary of the 'rally around the president' effect that regularly occurs in times of international crisis and has the highest public approval ratings in the history of the presidency," Greenstein said.

Last year, like the election 200 years earlier, the presidential voting was deadlocked. Two candidates claimed victory; the winner ultimately chosen not by the people, but by the members of one branch of the federal government.

Though Jefferson's victory in the House of Representatives over Aaron Burr in 1800 hastened the demise of the Federalists and started the Jeffersonian-Republican dynasty of the early 19th century, many today doubt Bush's success in the election of 2000 will be as seminal a point in American political history.

"Future events may lend greater historical significance to the election of 2000," politics professor Keith Whittington said. "If, for example, the Republicans do well in the next few election cycles — keep the presidency, tilt the balance in the Senate, solidify their majority in the House — then the 2000 election may look like a major turning point — the end of divided government and the beginning of a period of Republican dominance.

"But, at this point, that doesn't seem very likely," he noted.

Whatever the long-term significance of the election and the place it assumes in history books, some political analysts say there are several lingering effects.

"The election of 2000 will undoubtedly be remembered primarily for the unprecedented legal fight that followed it and the Supreme Court's intervention to end the dispute," Whittington said. "It reflects the importance of the judiciary in modern politics and the willingness of the modern Supreme Court to wade into political conflicts."

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Though Whittington argues that the Supreme Court seems to have found its way into partisan politics through the election, how partisan the Court and judicial branch has become is still debated. Last year many analysts made grim predictions for the Supreme Court.

"I tend to view the Scalia-led majority opinion in relation to the Florida electoral process during the 2000 presidential elections as dubious to the point of scandalous, seemingly inconsistent with the conservative view of federalism, and suspiciously linked to the promotion of a partisan political outcome," said Wilson School professor Richard Falk during the visit of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia last February. "All in all, such perceptions, which seem widely shared, definitely have diminished the stature of the Court."

Today the Court seems overshadowed by larger issues and does not appear to have been adversely affected, say some University professors.

Even now, the Senate and House of Representatives are fighting over the federal employment of airline baggage screeners — but it is not about mere security. Embedded in the Senate and House versions of air security legislation is not a fight about federal employees, but the fundamental question of the role of government that defines the hands-on Democrat policies and laissez-faire Republican principles.

Though many political analysts agree that Bush v. Gore seems forgotten in the wake of Sept. 11, most say the election of 2000 served to highlight partisan politics in American elections.

"What the Supreme Court decided, in the end, was that we should be governed by John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney," said Wilson School professor Stanley Katz. "It should remind the Democrats how much is at stake in presidential politics — and that partisan politics are the name of the game."

Others acknowledge that partisanship has grown since the election, but question the implications of the election.

"The election otherwise seems fairly forgettable," said Whittington.