The nation may be sentenced to live a while longer with punch cards and other antiquated voting methods, but couldn’t the highest court in the land bring itself into the modern age for just one day?

The Supreme Court’s refusal to allow live television coverage of its Friday hearing on the validity of Florida recounts in the presidential election is an unfortunate example of valuing tradition over public access to one of our most important institutions. The justices are passing up an opportunity to let Americans see history in the making.

One of their main reservations is that live coverage will somehow trivialize the proceedings. But think of the historic moments many of us have seen televised over the years: The funeral procession of John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson’s dramatic announcement that he would not seek re-election, the Watergate hearings and the resignation of Richard Nixon, and, more recently, the impeachment of President Clinton.

Rather than trivialize these events, television coverage gave us some of the most riveting moments in our collective memory. This case may not have the importance or drama of those, but it is a pivotal moment in the election. Live coverage would give people the chance to hear the opposing arguments as they unfold and evaluate them independently.

As for the argument that television coverage will lead to lawyerly theatrics, a Supreme Court hearing isn’t an episode of Ally McBeal. The lawyers who will argue this case are not neophytes trying to make a name for themselves; they are high-powered veterans of blue-stocking firms, who will be as singularly focused on winning their case as the justices will be on hearing it.

Some members of Congress have asked the court to reconsider its camera ban. The justices have not made a strong case for barring live coverage. It is in the public’s interest that we all have a chance to be eyewitnesses to proceedings in our highest court that will have a bearing on who ultimately holds our highest office.