Although Texas Gov. George W. Bush must now properly be referred to as president-elect, many Harvard political scientists and legal experts agree that Bush will face a tough task in convincing doubtful Democratic voters of the legitimacy of his new title.

Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel said he does not believe the U.S. Supreme Court should have reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision to order a statewide manual recount.

"Their decision sullies the legitimacy of the court and of the Bush presidency," he wrote in an e-mail message. "The 5-4 decision was based less on principle than on partisanship. In effect, the five justices in the majority simply voted for the president twice--once in November, and again in December."

Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, an adviser to Gore's recount team, criticized the ruling in stronger language.

In an interview, Dershowitz said that the court's decision was "absolutely not justified" and "purely partisan."

"The outcome of this case was determined by the name of the litigant," Dershowitz said. "The Supreme Court wanted Bush to be president and concocted a legal theory to produce that result."

"If Gore had been in the lead, [William] Rehnquist, [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas would have come up on the other side of the equal protection argument," he said.

The court's majority opinion held that the equal protection standard required by the 14th Amendment was violated by the varying recount procedures and ballot-counting standards.