While I was watching the post-Supreme Court decision analysis on December
12, I switched channels during the commercial break, a regular habit of
mine. As it happened, I turned to the History Channel, which was airing a
program called "World War II in Color", using rare-for-the-period color
film. I continued watching until the program was over.
I saw footage of Nazi storm troopers goose-stepping through streets thronged
with hundreds of thousands of cheering people, of courageous Britons
weathering the devastation of bombing, of leaders from free world countries
making stirring speeches, and of the Allies advancing to take back countries
that had fallen to the German war machine.
I thought that the juxtaposition of these two programs was interesting
because it started me thinking about how many Americans have died, how many
have sacrificed in other ways, and how many have served this country in
civilian office to give us the freedoms that we have. One of those freedoms
was the very freedom that has been acted out with so much rancor through the
post-election wranglingthat of speech.
Pundits were waxing rather vitriolic that particular night about the
"partisan" Supreme Court decision, but it was their right to do so.
Demonstrators were in the streets everywhere because they enjoy the same
right. My ardent hope is that once everyone calms down, they will
appreciate their rights more than they begrudge their political beefs with
this election.
Now to the main point. The U.S. Supreme Court should not be vilified for
its very difficult decision. I know that people who felt that perhaps their
votes did not get counted are understandably upset. They need to realize
that all over the country, votes did not get counted, for many reasons. In
a normal election, they would have never known about it. It happens in
every election.
People whose votes didn't get counted because they failed to follow
instructions haven't nearly as much reason to be angry as the thousands who
went to all the trouble to request and send in absentee ballots and have
them rejected because of U.S. military postal procedures which do not
postmark most military mail. Nonetheless, all of us want our votes counted.
We can fix that problem in the future. In the meantime, we must try to
understand that had the Florida court system worked properly, the U.S.
Supreme Court would never have had to take a case so fraught with partisan
passion. We can all be assured that they did not want this hot potato.
They are, however, charged with such a duty, and it would have been much
worse for future elections had they refused the case.
There were indeed very serious problems with the Florida Supreme Court's
decision, which would have stood as legal precedent and would have resulted
in every close election from now until Doomsday being sent through the
courts. This is no way to conduct our political process. Recounts are
fine, and are freqently used. However, recounts that do not treat voters
equally are not fine. There must be rules. There are rules. The Court,
basing its opinion on an abominally unclear 1917 legal decision, threw these
rules out the window.
The rules are simple and are on every ballot in every state in which I have
voted (all on punchcard ballots). Written right there for everyone to see
is the statement that you should check your ballot to make sure it is
punched correctlythat if you don't, your ballot will be invalid. There are
poll workers who can help if you mess up. I have had to request a new
ballot twice over the years myself. Once, I made a mistake. Once, the
machine did something weird. Neither time did I believe that anyone was
trying to disenfranchise me by asking me to follow rules.
I don't buy that argument from anyone. The first thing we're taught, in
kindergarten or first grade, is to follow instructions. If we don't follow
instructions in our daily lives, we pay the price. If we don't follow the
rules in sports, we receive penalties. If I follow the rules of an
election, and then someone changes the rules so that someone who didn't
follow the rules gets to vote, who is the loser? Society. Because then we
are teaching everyone that rules can be ignored. If people are confused at
the polling booth, they can ask for help. If they do not care enough to do
it right, they are indeed causing others a problem with due process and
equal protection. All the Supreme Court said was that there must be a
standard that is fair to everyone. And that was not a five to four ruling.
It was seven to two. The other two will still have to make it clear to me
why they think that people who do not follow the rules deserve more
consideration than those who do.
Now our task is to come together as both Bush and Gore said in their
excellent post-decision speeches. Instead of bellyaching about this
election, let's make it our business to see that this type thing doesn't
happen again. Let's have a real voter education drive, rather than just
dumping people at the polls to try to make our party win. Let's make sure
that all people know what to do when they go to the polls and that they
understand why they are voting, for whom, and the positions of the people
for whom they vote not just on one issue but on as many as possible. An
uninformed electorate is a dangerous thingmaking unwise decisions at best
and an easily manipulated tool for the unscrupulous at worst. Our country
deserves better than that.