When the United States Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, ending the controversial recount of presidential votes in Florida and handing the contested 2000 election to George W. Bush over Al Gore, some election law scholars told a “lemonade from lemons” story: It is true there was much to criticize about the Supreme Court's decision to take the case, its equal protection rationale, and its controversial remedial decision to end the recount rather than remand for a recount complying with (newly articulated) equal protection standards. But the opinion could usher in an era when courts would use the equal protection clause as a tool to fix some fundamental inequalities in the “nuts and bolts” of our country's hyper-decentralized election administration system. These scholars stood opposed to those who saw the case--especially given its language “limiting” its precedential reach --as a “one-day-only” ticket to assure the choice of Bush over Gore for President and to another group of scholars who saw it as an appropriate resolution of the case, perhaps avoiding a constitutional crisis.