St. Louis judge right to keep polls open

I find it difficult to understand how the editorial staff at the IDS could vote unanimously that the decision of Judge Baker to keep polls in St. Louis open was unfair ("Judge's order in St. Louis was unfair," Nov. 16). You write that "voters in a single district should not be afforded an extra opportunity to vote while the rest of the state sits by and watches." The voters of St. Louis were not afforded an extra opportunity; they were afforded an opportunity to vote, as were all the other voters of the state. There were no similar technical problems reported in any other voting district of Missouri, so the voters of all the other districts had an opportunity to vote. Those who waited hours in line in St. Louis would not have had it not been for the judges decision. \nYou mention voter apathy in your editorial. How absurd it would be, if indeed we live in an age of voter apathy, to turn away voters because of a technical problem. As far as your contention that "technical difficulties should never cause problems with the voting process," it would be wise to be more realistic. Considering the complexity of the procedure, it is surprising that St. Louis was the only place were this problem arose. The judge's decision was a prudent response that allowed for a fair vote. How does it in any way improve the democratic process if people are denied the opportunity to vote?\nMoreover, in no other part of the state was any such motion brought before the court. Judge Baker did not have the jurisdiction to keep the polls open in any other part of the state. Nor, for that matter, was there any need, as evidenced by the fact that no one from the rest of the state brought any motion to do this. You write that "Republicans in the state of Missouri have a right to be mad." Should they be mad because they did not constitute a majority in a senatorial election in which all the voters of the state were allowed an equal opportunity to vote? \nI repeat, keeping the polls open did not afford the Democratic voters of St. Louis an extra opportunity -- it gave them the opportunity they otherwise would have been denied because of a technical problem. Would that have been fair?\nThe Republican party objected that keeping the polls open was criminal, which is absurd because it was ordered by a judge. The Republican party leaders were not upset because Republican voters did not have a chance to vote; they were upset because Democratic voters did. To the Republican party anything that allows for people to vote -- and for their votes to be counted accurately -- constitutes election fraud. Look at the proclamations of James Baker, who led such a disastrous career as secretary of state, against an accurate vote count in Florida. The effrontery of Republican leaders is always astounding. More astounding still is that with George W. Bush claiming to support working-class families and supporting tax cuts for the rich, cuts in funding for education, health care, medical research, child welfare, environmental protection, etc., people actually think of Al Gore as the dishonest candidate.\nI feel justified in expecting a higher standard of journalism from aspiring writers at what supposedly is an excellent University.