A new Voting Rights Act that includes federal spending and follows the court's suggestions for fair and uniform procedures in federal elections would at least take some of the partisan edge and bitterness off its contested ruling. But beware of hidden agendas. A sure way to deepen the already rancid public cynicism would be for Bush and his allies to use an investigation of the Florida mess as an excuse for foiling urgently needed campaign finance reform. That litigation is going forward, and it will prove useful as another means of unearthing the facts about exactly what went wrong. Another implication of the disputed election is that Bush's opponents have a right to insist that decisions made during his term bind future administrations as little as possible.
Judicial appointees have lifetime tenure and can affect policy for a generation or more.
The battle over John Ashcroft's nomination for attorney general ought to be taken by the administration as fair warning. If Bush were to appoint ideologues to the courts, he'd be courting war. Depoliticizing judicial appointments should be a priority, Holmes believes. Galbraith, a former congressional staffer, also argues that, in the current political circumstances, Bush's opponents have a right to demand that the new president not use tax cuts to tie the hands of his successors. All tax bills necessarily affect future revenue, and there is certainly a case for limiting the size of any tax cut now.