We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions



 

Delay the Presidential Election Indefinitely
by Edward L. Daley
16 September 2003ACLU

What's good for California is certainly good for the rest of the country


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that the California recount election could not go forward as planned because six counties still use the punch-card balloting system, now considered outdated by millions of people in the United States. The ruling followed a hearing before a U.S. District Court a week ago in which the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought to postpone the vote but had its request denied. Lawyers for the civil rights group argued that a UC Berkeley study had showed that as many as 40,000 poor and minority voters could have their ballots excluded if punch-card ballots were used. The three judge panel agreed, even though this same voting system was used only last year to reelect Governor Gray Davis without any objection by the ACLU.

The 9th Circuit, the federal court most frequently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, concluded that "In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," citing the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision as an example of potential voter disenfranchisement should the punch-card ballots be used. The same sort of ballots were at the center of the presidential election controversy in Florida three years ago which resulted in a delay by more than a month of the final decision concerning the election's outcome.

Proponents of the October recall election have vowed to take their case to the Supreme Court as soon as possible, and the leading Republican gubernatorial candidate, Arnold Schwarzenegger, released a statement calling upon the California Secretary of State to " immediately appeal this decision on behalf of the citizens who exercised their Constitutional right to recall Governor Gray Davis and who expect an election on October 7."

The second most popular Republican candidate, state Senator Tom McClintock, did not seem overly concerned after hearing about the ruling, saying that "This is the most overturned court in the U.S., I'm confident this will be overturned in a matter of days if not a matter of hours."

While it remains to be seen if the Senator's prediction will prove to be correct, the ruling of the notoriously liberal, activist 9th Court of Appeals leads me, your humble editorialist, to ask a couple of pertinent questions. Does the court consider both poor and minority voters to be less intelligent than either wealthy or white voters? Based upon the argument advanced by the ACLU, which the federal court justices unanimously agreed with, that some 40,000 of them would likely be disenfranchised simply by using punch-card ballots, it stands to reason that they believe such a premise to be true. If that is not the case, why were only poor and minority voters mentioned in the first place? Certainly people of many races (whites included) and economic classes (middle and upper included) live in the counties that still use punch-card ballots.

Secondly, if the court does indeed feel that a statewide election should not be held which incorporates the use of punch-card type ballots, would it also agree that far more important nationwide elections should not be undertaken for the same reason? After all, many states in the U.S. still use virtually identical punch-card systems for voting. If poor and minority voters aren't capable of properly manipulating these types of ballots, how can we possibly allow the next presidential election to take place until every state makes sure these ballots have been replaced with more user-friendly ones?

It is my opinion that, since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear that it considers the use of punch-card ballots to be a likely cause of poor and minority voter disenfranchisement, no election should take place in this country until all such voting systems have been replaced. Personally, I don't buy the argument that poor people and minorities aren't as capable as everyone else of casting a punch-card ballot correctly, but then I'm not a federal court justice. If the ACLU and the 9th Court believe otherwise, who am I to stand in the way of their quest to achieve voter "fairness?"

I am willing to support their findings 100 percent, and, furthermore, insist that the 2004 presidential election be delayed, if necessary, until every state in the union eliminates every single punch-card ballot currently in use. What's good for California is certainly good for the rest of the country, and if it means that President Bush has to retain his office for a few extra months or even years in order to insure that ALL THE VOTES ARE COUNTED, so be it!

As the 9th Circuit Court so eloquently put it, "The choice between holding a hurried, constitutionally infirm election and one held a short time later that assures voters that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied is clear." Absolutely, and the principles of equal treatment and fairness apply not only to California voters, but to every other American as well. That's why next year's presidential election, and indeed, ALL elections in the United States need to be stopped until such a time as this worrisome punch-card problem can be resolved.

Edward L. Daley is the owner of The Daley Times-Post
.

Email Edward Daley

Send this Article to a Friend