Staff Editorial: Delay right move in California

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California successfully petitioned a San Francisco court to delay the recall election of Governor Gray Davis. The ACLU represented several civil rights groups who argued that the voting machinery in six counties with large minority populations was prone to error--errors which could cause as many as 40,000 individuals' votes to be miscounted or not counted at all.

The three-judge panel invoked the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore, stating that the faulty machinery would negate the Equal Protection Clause, which mandates that each person's vote must be counted equally. The election--which was scheduled to take place on Oct. 7--would be moved back to March, to coincide with the March presidential primaries. However, an appeal has been filed, and the case will be reconsidered by a an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. While delaying the election until March will have several unfortunate consequences, protecting voters from disenfranchisement is more important. Therefore, the Appeals Court should uphold the ruling to push back the election.

The election machinery in question are the same equipment that was used in the 2000 Florida presidential election debacle. The machines have an estimated error of 3 percent, meaning that as many as 40,000 people's votes could be mishandled. The machines were scheduled to be replaced by March for the 2004 presidential primaries, as election officials had obviously not planned for a recall election to take place. While these machines do not guarantee 100 percent accuracy, they are much less prone to error than the current system.

While delaying the election will improve the accuracy of vote counting, it will have several negative effects. First, numerous absentee ballots have already been mailed out, and in some cases, filled out by voters and returned. Extensive voter turn-out acitivites have already been conducted. It will cost California a significant amount to restart these processes. Further, many candidates geared their campaigns, and their campaign spending toward an Oct. 7 election. Adding approximately six months to the campaign period will significantly alter the amount of money required to continue to compete. In addition, Republicans argue, holding the election on the same day as the presidential primaries will unfairly aid Democratic candidates. Since the Democratic nomination for president will be contested by several candidates, it is likely that voter turn-out among Democratic voters will be high. It is generally accepted that President George W. Bush will gain the Republican nomination, leading to an unfair balance between Democrats and Republicans at the polls.

Opponents of the delay also cite California law, which mandates that a recall election be held within 80 days of the gathering of the requisite number of signatures required to certify an election. Further, opponents state that Bush v. Gore is not applicable to the California case, because that ruling was designated to apply only to the 2000 Presidential race.

While the concerns of many conservatives and opponents of the delay are legitimate, they do not outweigh the fundamental principle that every person should be assured that their right to vote is guaranteed, and that their vote will be counted properly. The voters are not responsible for the number of candidtes on the democratic ballot, and they should not be penalized because of it. In light of this, the election must be delayed until the proper machinery is put in place.