This week, of course, President Bush will be inaugurated as president again after a very hard fought victory over John Kerry in the November elections.

Most Americans accept Mr. Bush’s victory at the polls in November, despite efforts of a few diehards to cast doubt upon it. Conspiracy theories involving skewed voting in rural Florida counties were basically discredited by the Miami Herald and other news outlets. Moreover, while there were no shortage of instances of irregularities, delays and poor practices in the voting in Ohio, these instances were not nearly widespread enough to overcome Mr. Bush’s 119,000 margin in that state. As former president Clinton said recently, “I voted for the other guy, but President Bush won this election fair and square.”

Still, while the results of the election are obviously much clearer than four years ago, this would be a good time for leaders of all political persuasions to work together to improve the voting environment. Although Congress made something of a start in enacting the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, it is clear that much needs to be done, both on a state and federal level.

Democrats certainly made a number of legitimate complaints about the last election. There is no reason, for example, why prospective voters in urban areas in Ohio should have been required to wait on line for many hours before voting. One would think that statewide standards of a half hour or less absent extraordinary conditions would be in order. Moreover, while some of the conspiracy theories surrounding electronic voting machines and their manufacturers are overblown, the concept of having a paper record for each vote to permit recounts makes good sense.

On the other hand, however, a number of sensible reforms are typically resisted by Democrats and their liberal allies. For example, there is no reason why voters should not be required to present identification before voting. In addition, the officials who run big-city election boards, frequently Democrats, are sometimes less than vigilant in weeding out fraud and ineligible voters.

A cautionary tale can be found in the ongoing battle concerning the governor’s race in the state of Washington. The initial count favored Republican candidate Dino Rossi over his Democratic opponent, Christine Gregoire, by a razor-thin 261 votes out of the 2.9 million cast and a subsequent recount had Mr. Rossi leading by 42 votes. However, a third count, a so-called hand recount, reversed Mr. Rossi’s victory and gave the election to Ms. Gregoire, who was inaugurated on January 12, by 129 votes. Supporters of Mr. Rossi, angered by the revised results, are going to court demanding a revote. Among other allegations, Republicans charge that 348 “provisional” votes were counted before the eligible status of the voter was determined, that the total of votes cast exceeded the number of recorded voters and that the next of kin of dead voters were in some instances allowed to vote for the deceased.

The Washington Supreme Court will sort out the mess and determine whether a revote is the appropriate remedy. Nevertheless, Washington’s difficult election and a number of others should point up the need for the right equipment and the right fair and competent personnel to insure that elections are as honest and well conducted as possible. As we swear in our president again in a celebration of democracy and also attempt to spread the gospel of democracy throughout the world, it is important that we have an election process that fully lives up to our aspirations.