Asked to judge the impossible, the U.S. Supreme Court chose a winner in the presidential race Tuesday using the arguments convenient to the ideology of the court’s majority. Though the language of its opinion attempted to rescue the dignity of the court from the partisan divide, justices will depend upon the good will of the candidates and tolerance of the public to accept its verdict and help restore faith in an election system that has proved to be neither evenhanded nor capable of carrying out one of the fundamental expressions of the power invested in the people, a full and fair opportunity to vote.

The court’s refusal to test its hunch that the Florida Supreme Court did not have time to spell out a uniform standard for counting disputed ballots was a disappointment to those who believed the state court had reasonably interpreted state law. The federal court’s usual deference to the state judiciary was abandoned – or transferred to the state legislature, for those with confidence in the majority opinion – leaving in place an incomplete vote count brought on, in part, by inadequate voting machinery and ballots.

President-elect George Bush should publicly recognize that while he is the legitimate victor in the race based on the capability of the voting apparatus and the rulings of the court, the nation will not – cannot – know the actual tally of the intended vote. Both the next president and his opponent, Al Gore, have a duty to support the office of the presidency in what they have helped turn into a perilous time for its authority.

The conclusion of the dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens to Tuesday’s ruling already has been widely reprinted: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Justice Stevens was concerned with the public’s respect for the court. That is essential, but can be regained quickly. Not knowing who won the election is going to last forever.

After initial and largely misdirected demands that the United States toss out the Electoral College on the grounds that it did not instantly produce a winner, calmer reflection and an excruciating examination of Florida’s election system has produced a direction for basic but essential changes to polling places, among them the opportunity for all voting Americans to have an equal opportunity to cast a ballot that can be counted in the total. If the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause has a place in the current debate it is over the faulty ballot machinery in poorer Florida precincts.

Making presidential ballots standard across the nation is not too much to ask nor too difficult to achieve by 2004. Ensuring the rules of voting by raising the level of instruction to polling place volunteers certainly is possible, as is the state obligation to more specifically describe procedures for verifying close elections. The nation may have grown sloppy over the years in carrying out a fundamental expression of citizenship, but it is more than capable of repairing the damage.

A veil of voting accuracy and one of smugness were removed with this election. The exposure has been humbling. The Supreme Court, normally so mysterious to the general public, demonstrated a very human concern with solving the riddle of this election even as it showed humor (“I’m Scalia”) and political tendencies no different from the general public. The nation learned more about the candidates, through their post-election behavior, than it could have in the 18 months of campaigning.

With the election over, the new administration and Congress have been given a single mandate: Fix the current election system in a way that restores its integrity and allows the public to place its trust in it once again.