The simple answer is that if the state uses the same type of machine everywhere, the error rate will be the same and therefore there will be "equal protection" for all voters.  Thus, all elections are not suspect; only those that use different kinds of ballot boxes statewide;   since the popular vote does not matter in a presidential election (constitutionally at least); then it would not matter if state "A" has a modern system of optical readers; state "B" uses punchcards; and state "C" uses paper ballots, as long as the system is the same for the entire state.


--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Robert Sheridan wrote:
Message
 
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
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to