Elections are the bedrock of democracy. That is why judges historically have been loath to interfere with the electoral process – and rightly so. To intervene in the balloting from the bench undermines the voters' ability to express their will, the ultimate source of government legitimacy.

By delaying indefinitely the Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has defied the sensible principle that judges must stay out of elections except under the most extreme circumstances. The three-judge panel, based in San Francisco, cavalierly disregarded the state constitution in order to assert its claim that the balloting to remove Gov. Gray Davis should be put off. Worse, its ruling mocks the 2.1 million California voters who signed petitions in accordance with the recall rules prescribed by the constitution.

This gross judicial overreach should be appealed immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court, which should overturn the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold the validity of the California constitution. With the scheduled date of the election only three weeks from today, swift action by the high court is essential.

Through its meddling, the 9th Circuit has incited turmoil in what already was a chaotic electoral process. Many voters already have cast mail ballots. Are their votes to be thrown out? Or will they be held until next year or whatever other date the 9th Circuit deems acceptable for the recall election? If the balloting is delayed until the March 2 primary, more than five months away, will additional gubernatorial candidates be allowed to join the 135 currently on the ballot.

The three appellate judges based their ruling on the assertion of recall opponents, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, that the punch-card ballots used in six counties, including San Diego, were not accurate enough to ensure a fair election. Granted, the outmoded punch-card ballots are not as accurate as modern, computerized touch screens. But they have been used reliably in elections throughout California for more than 25 years.

In fact, punch-card ballots were used to elect Davis in 1998 and re-elect him in 2002. If they were accurate enough for voters to express their will in electing Davis, why are they not accurate enough for voters to express their will in recalling him?

Last month, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson rejected the request by recall opponents to postpone the Oct. 7 balloting. He correctly reasoned that the long-standing use of punch-card ballots did not warrant federal judicial intervention in an election being held in accordance with the state constitution. His ruling was overturned by 9th Circuit justices Harry Pregerson, Richard Paez and Sidney Thomas.

With this ruling, the maverick 9th Circuit has once again reinforced its reputation as not only the most activist, liberal court in the country, but also the appeals panel most often reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is yet another case in which the high court has an obligation to overturn the 9th Circuit's action.