According to
excerpts from the Ninth Circuit opinion, a significant factor in halting the
California recall election for months is that use of punch-card ballots may
produce 40,000 erroneous votes in an election where the margin of victory may be
less than 40,000 votes. Therefore the election must be called off
because it is better to be safe than sorry.
I suppose that to
the extent this reasoning is sufficient to cancel an election, or delay it
unexpectedly and perhaps unduly, we can expect this sort of challenge in every
election from now on regardless of balloting technique.
In the name of more
democracy we seem to be achieving less, based on conjecture and
speculation, one group's error and vote projections vs. another's,
uninfluenced political calculations, of course. The people, of course,
were led to expect an election.
Isn't this the
argument for HAVING the election in the first place?
Why wasn't the order
to the California Secretary of State to see that an election was conducted that
was NOT "constitutionally infirm?" And let HIM petition the court for more
time if necessary. Only SOME of the counties, as I understand it, use
punch card ballots. HE is reported to have been working to insure a proper
election. Was any evidence adduced proving how long it would take for
those punch-card counties to come up to snuff by election
day?
As I recall, the
California Supreme Court refused to touch this election on political question
grounds.
Talk about the federal system wading into the political
thicket with both feet on the basis of upholding "rudimentary requirements of
equal treatment and fundamental fairness" for each voter....
Is the Ninth Circuit more sensitive to voting rights than the
California Supreme Court, or less sensitive to the need to run the race on the
day announced? Considering the amount of preparation and expense that the
candidates invest in an election, playing the game on Super Bowl Sunday, not
some other day months away, seems an important value to
me.
Robert
Sheridan
SFLS
