Whatever the outcome, Marylanders deserve an expedited hearing and decision on the court suit lodged by Republican Ellen Sauerbrey to overturn the Nov. 8 election of Parris Glendening as this state's next governor.
Mrs. Sauerbrey's legal request, masterminded by the Republican National Committee, is extraordinary in its objectives. Never before in Maryland history has a judge set aside the vote of the electorate and declared the loser to be the winner. Never before in this nation's history has a judge ordered a new election for governor.
But Mrs. Sauerbrey, who lost by less than 6,000 votes, alleges that the balloting was tainted. Her court document charges that election officials failed to follow the law, that thousands of prisoners voted illegally, that tens of thousands of voters who moved and didn't notify the election board voted illegally, that dozens of dead people cast votes, that dozens of people voted twice and that all this was done to deny her the governorship.
She provided no evidence to substantiate these charges. That presumably will come at a hearing or a trial. Mr. Glendening and his chief lawyer say from what they have seen so far Mrs. Sauerbrey has a flimsy case. Marylanders will know more once the two sides face each other in open court.
This has to happen soon. The inauguration is set, by the state constitution, for the third Wednesday in January (the 18th). That doesn't leave much time for an exhaustive examination of the Sauerbrey allegations.
Yet any delay would cause irreparable harm to the state. If Mr. Glendening were prevented from taking the oath of office, outgoing Gov. William Donald Schaefer would continue to run the state indefinitely -- with no mandate from the voters. Meanwhile, Mr. Glendening's status would be in limbo. He already has found legislators distracted when discussing his ambitious budget goals. Chaos and uncertainty would reign in Annapolis, especially in the House and Senate.
Of course, none of this may happen. It may be that Mrs. Sauerbrey is asking the wrong arbiter for relief: The state constitution clearly gives the power to determine "the number and legality of votes" to the House of Delegates. (It happened once before -- in 1876.) Or the courts may determine that what occurred amounted to election-day glitches, not a conspiracy to defraud Mrs. Sauerbrey.
Nevertheless, if wrongdoing has occurred, state prosecutors should pursue the perpetrators. If numerous voting-day foul-ups took place, the state's process for conducting elections should be overhauled. It is up to Mrs. Sauerbrey to put all the facts she has gathered on the judicial table, and for the state's lawyers to respond. This matter cannot be allowed to linger. Maryland deserves a governor.