Court issues necessary stay

Washington Post: The three-judge court that struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law this month has stayed its ruling. The temporary freeze is important, because it allows the reform law to remain in effect while the Supreme Court decides its fate. The lower court's 1,600-page discussion of the law is fractured and, in key parts, implausible, and none of the judges agrees with the constitutional logic of the entirety of their joint effort.
What McCain-Feingold will look like when it emerges from the Supreme Court is anybody's guess, but it's a pretty safe bet that it won't be much like the version that emerged from the panel's deliberation. Under these circumstances, it would have been irresponsible for the judges to insist that all political participants -- parties, officeholders, interest groups and candidates -- live under their ruling for the months it will take the Supreme Court to rule. Declining to issue a stay would have created a massive change in the ground rules for elections for the second time in six months -- with the prospect of yet a third earthquake just around the corner. The public interest in stability in the law cautioned strongly against such a roller-coaster ride.
Presidential election
The question now -- assuming the Supreme Court does the prudent thing and leaves the stay in place -- is how quickly the high court can take up the case. Unfortunately, the lower court spent so long on it that the judges have guaranteed that its final adjudication will take place deep into the 2004 presidential election cycle -- a prospect that risks embroiling the court, for a second time in as many presidential races, in the political heat of a hotly contested election.
Political participants are entitled to know with certainty what the rules are, and the faster the court rules, the farther away the election will be -- and the less likely the court will be seen as meddling in it. The possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy presents an additional complication. It would be unfortunate, after all, if the court had to tackle the case short-handed or if a prospective justice's attitude toward the case loomed over a confirmation battle.
The court, in short, should do whatever it can to decide this case swiftly. In the meantime, at least the law remains the one Congress wrote -- rather than the one the judges patched together.