I'd also add that the case was, unfortunately, wrongly decided (as to it's basis, not outcome). The core conservatives -- Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas -- wanted to decide the case on Article II of the Constitution, regarding the selection of Presidential electors:
Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative
The Florida Supreme Court had, in effect, blatantly rewritten the clear and unambiguous Florida election law -- the "manner" in which the state legislature had "directed" electors to be appointed -- changing specific dates and procedures regarding the challenge/contest (county election commission directed versus court mediated) phases for elections disputes, and the specific certification date. This was a clear and direct violation of Article II. In addition, federal election law clarifies that elections must be decided strictly on the basis of law in place at the time the vote occurred. You can't go back and change the rules ex post facto.
We would now be much better protected against future election stealing gambits of the type habitually practiced by Democrats if Bush v. Gore had been decided on this basis, but tragically Rehnquist could not assemble a majority on these grounds, which were too straightforward for the liberals and "moderates" on the court. Instead Rehnquist had to cobble together a majority on the basis of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sadly this passes over the key Constitutional violation committed by the Florida Supreme Court, instead obsessing obscurely about the entirely subsidiary means it employed in effecting the violation. In so doing, Bush v. Gore not only failed to preclude future violations of Article II by state courts, it even opens new possibilities for justifying such violations! For instance a State Court could hold that election law in place at the time of a Presidential election somehow violated "equal protection" -- easily done considering the woolly and open-ended interpretations to which the standards is prone -- and thereby effectively modify the law on the basis of Bush v. Gore.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER REASON WE NEED MORE UNMUDDLED, ORIGINAL INTENT COSERVATIVES ON THE SCOTUS!!!