I think it's significant that this law suit is being brought as to future
elections, not as to a past one. In the Bush v. Gore situation, one could
argue that everyone had known that different systems would be used in
different jurisdictions, and that therefore it would be unfair to now
invalidate the use of punch cards. Beside, if punch cards were
invalidated, then there would be no choice but to re-run the election, a
pretty daunting task. But if Bush v. Gore means anything (and one would
hope that it does, as opposed to being an ad hoc decision), then it would
seem to give a good deal of hope for plaintiffs trying to challenge the
procedures to be used in future elections. On the other hand, a court
might well find it quite difficult to decide what the remedy should be;
after all, courts are hardly experts in running elections.


On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rick Hasen wrote:

Here's a link to an L.A. Times article on the ACLU's suit challenging
the use of punch cards in California:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/locpol/lat_vote010418.htm
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Professor Craig N. Oren                    telephone *856-225-6365
 Rutgers School of Law-Camden               fax  *856-969-7921
 Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey
 217 N. 5th Street
 Camden, N.J. 08102-1203                    oren@camden.rutgers.edu

*please note the new area code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------