"The federal district court based its order squarely on the Equal Protection precedent of Bush v. Gore. The relevant facts are somewhat technical and complicated, but if this order prevails—if, in other words, it is not overturned by a higher federal court—it will itself become an important additional precedent on the meaning of Bush v. Gore (and thus on the scope of Equal Protection in the context of ballot-counting disputes).
Even more intriguing, this dispute appears to have the potential of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court itself, or at least one of its Justices (indeed, its newest member, Justice Elena Kagan), to weigh in on how the precedent of Bush v. Gore applies to other elections besides the one in which it arose (which was, of course, the 2000 presidential election)."
Commentary: Ohio Provisional Ballot Case: What Is Going On? Bush v. Gore as precedent?
Election Law @ Moritz:
