If a polity's election is canceled by the courts, is it still a democracy? That is the question that a three-judge panel has left unanswered in halting the recall election of in California. Citing their worries about a "hurried, constitutionally infirm" process, the judges threaten to turn Arnold Schwarzenegger into just another action hero. First, Florida, now California. Who's next?
The ACLU brought suit complaining about a punch card system not unlike Florida's that has inherent defects that would disenfranchise voters in 6 counties (including Los Angeles county), comprising about 44% of the state's electorate. It begs the question of where the ACLU was when this very same voting system was used to elect Governor Davis in the first place, but apparently that isn't the issue.
If the ruling holds, and there are appeals ahead, the recall will go ahead in March, along with a state primary for president that will bring out the Democrats (no Republican challenger for Mr. Bush will prove a problem). What's the big deal, then?
Democracy is a miserable way to run anything, confusing as it does what is reasonable, sensible and effective with what is popular. Democracy produces charlatan leaders chosen by an ill-informed, selfish electorate -- but it confers on them a legitimacy no other system can challenge. Power is conferred (foolishly most often) by the governed, and it may be revoked by those who bestowed power in the first place. While bad leaders and decisions result, it does keep the body count down.
But twice now, American courts have stopped the democratic process in the name of some higher, constitutional authority. No doubt there is one, but the courts would be wise not to question the process too closely. After all, federal judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate, and they are chosen by the people -- so long as the courts permit elections. President Lincoln asked how a nation could survive half-slave and half-free. Today, one wonders what happened to the half that was free.