the presidential election of 2000 is finally over. No doubt somebody’s busy writing the first book about it all, but I doubt this tale will have the sex appeal – literally or figuratively – of other recent political dramas. Meanwhile, here are some final thoughts.

  Gore’s Challenge. We have some experience with close elections, stolen elections and contested elections in Louisiana. We have some pretty thorough law on the subject as a result. The bottom line is that election challenges rarely succeed.

  Courts reviewing elections usually give great deference to the returns. Overturning an election requires two elements of proof: (1) that fraud or mistake occurred; and (2) that it was widespread enough to have affected the outcome of the election. Proving that is a very tall order.   

  Worst of all, time is of the essence. Challenges usually must be filed within days – which means evidence must already be in hand – and hearings must be concluded quickly. As the clock ticks toward a certification deadline or a swearing-in date, the law can appear to favor finality over accuracy. That’s why Woody Jenkins had to take his challenge to the U.S. Senate. Another way of putting it, to borrow a phrase from criminal constitutional law, is that our system guarantees fair elections, not perfect ones.

  The U.S. Supreme Court framed its final decision in terms of Equal Protection and Due Process, but I could almost hear Chief Justice William Rehnquist saying that Al Gore got a fair, if imperfect shot in Florida.

  The Supremes. The Florida Supreme Court is going to get lots of scrutiny from historians and legal scholars. Legally, no one can say "time will tell," for the U.S. Supreme Court has now twice slapped the Florida high court for overstepping the bounds.

  Then again, the Florida justices didn’t exactly have a blueprint for deciding this one. Our presidential election is not a national election; it’s 50 state elections (plus the District of Columbia) held simultaneously. That would seem to tilt in favor of applying Florida state law to Gore’s case.

  The federal constitution, on the other hand, expressly delegates to each state legislature the authority to make presidential election rules. Thus, federal and state law overlap. The trick for courts in this case has been to try to harmonize the two, and then, when they can’t, to decide which should prevail. It’s not easy. All we know now is that, if there’s going to be a recount, there had better be uniform (and specific) standards and procedures.

  And modern voting machines would be nice, too.

  One more thing: the national media had another brain fart the morning after the final U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bush’s favor. The decision was not a 5-4 vote; it was 7-2 to overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s decision ordering the recount. Two of the majority of seven split on the remedy. The difference between a decision and a remedy is akin to that between a verdict and a sentence.

  The last thing we needed at the end was more confusion over numbers.

  The Speeches. Al Gore gave what may be the finest speech of his life last Wednesday. He was everything his handlers had wanted him to be during the campaign. Too bad for him he didn’t hit his stride until the denouement.

  George Bush’s speech was among his best, but it lacked the drama of Gore’s. That’s OK. In fact, for Bush it was probably preferable. He didn’t have to prove anything. He won. He also did what he needed to do at that moment: remind us that he has a vision for America’s future, and invite us to join him in making it happen.

  Through it all, Americans continued to do what we do best: carry on. That may be the best news of all.

  Happy Holidays. .