CHECK HERE FOR 2004 POST-ELECTION NEWS
The latest in the Ohio election (facts are condensed from Bloggerman’s blog): Rep. Conyers, the ranking Democrat in the House Judiciary Committee will be formally contesting Ohio’s electoral votes on January 6th during a Joint Session of Congress where states’ votes are counted. But before the formal contest on the 6th, he must have a Senator co-sign the written challenge. Not sure that’s going to happen! Even if it does, the Senate and House individually vote to accept or reject the challenge. A rejection voted by a majority, on the other hand, will surely happen. At least it’ll get on the record.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee has agreed to investigate the election on its own (I hope to have enough time to post the main points being investigated in this thread). In addition to the GAO’s investigation, we should see results trickling in through alternative news in the coming years. Unfortunately, any positive results from the investigations—that is, results that show a need for institutional election reform—will most likely not give us enough time to improve our system for the 2008 election. Considering how little attention is being given to the topic now only a month after the election (imagine how little interest there will be after a couple of years), I’m not optimistic when it comes to the next few elections—UNLESS we find multiple cases of wrongdoing; there are plenty of cases where we may find this.
What I AM optimistic about is that, despite the cold shoulder from the press—especially the mainstream press—and the obvious apathy on the part of Republicans, which happen to control the country at the moment, Democrats in Ohio are still working hard to get an accurate vote tally, shine a light (albeit a very dim light) on the flaws in our system, and investigate possible criminal activities. This is good. It’s good because it tells me that we’re being constructive with our frustration and are committed to honesty and democracy. Somebody has to be responsible for improving elections. If not for this, what chance would we have?
I’m disappointed with the anger I’ve been hearing from many Republicans on TV and radio in response to the calls for investigations. Why are they so angry that we’re looking into this? I suppose it’s because they think we’re trying to discredit Bush’s victory, or because we’re angry, or because we’re in denial. Frankly, I think they’re just trying to be louder. If they seem angry enough, our outcry will be crushed by a vociferous “SHUT-UP!!!” shouted in unison.
posted by The Decider @ 8:14 PM
9 Comments:
Thanks for posting about this---much easier than digging through the news to find stories about Ohio when you're not in Ohio.
JB
Wait. I hope I'm confused. Is Guille arguing that a group of rightfully qualified citizens shouldn't be allowed to register to vote without restriction or impediment? Or is he arguing that he wants the religious right to be forced to sit on juries if they vote?
The Amish are the least likely to try to impose their belief structure on others. They are the seperation of church and state taken to an extreme. It seems to me that the members of this blog community should be relieved that a group of religion-minded individuals (who believe that science and technology are sinful) would self-select out of the judicial system. But to do this must they also give up their voice in elections?
Tread easy, Rocketman, you're heading somewhere scary...what are you so afraid?
It seems that we're counting on their religious convictions to keep them off juries and out of voting booths. Knowing how well Republicans are at recruiting and persuading, this won't last long. Amish and Hutterite colonies accounted for major registration increases this year in several target states.
We have two choices:
1) Kill the bill. Religious fanatics ultimately will decide to vote and are also placed on juries that make decisions on everything from evolution to sodomy to gay marriage.
2) Pass the bill. The fanatics vote, but don't effect decisions in our courts.
The Republicans have been straight forward with their motivations. Ultimately, they seem to be mutually beneficial. What are we so afraid of?
Inspired by the Keith Olbermann (new posting today at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/), I should clarify that the House Judiciary Committee has not launched formal investigations. A series of ad hoc forums have been completed and are scheduled for the future.
Conyers has been silent lately. I don't think this will be going anywhere unless the press picks up stories on the forums soon.
The latest as reported by Keith Olbermann:
Rep. Conyers intends on formally challenging Ohio's electoral votes next Thursday. The challenge still requires a Senator. Here's the text from a letter sent to Democratic Senator Boxer from California:
"Dear Senator Boxer,
"As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law. I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election.
"3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof. When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until the [pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of." 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.
"Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.
"Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of".
"Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr."
Jesse Jackson held a rally in Columbus today to protest Ohio's election results. He's making some noise down here. I saw it on the local news, which is really rare. I wonder how much it's helping to have a very partisan political figure leading this fight.
Here's an interview with Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6770193/). :
NEWSWEEK: What’s the matter with Ohio?
Rev. Jesse Jackson: In Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Youngstown, Cleveland, where I was, you had blacks standing in line for six hours in the rain. That’s a form of voter suppression.
Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell says that machines were allotted based on turnout in past years, and that he didn’t realize they’d need more machines until it was too late.
He had to know it because registration was up. Blackwell may have had to deliver for Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney and he got a lighter rap than [former Florida Secretary of State Katherine] Harris got. But Ohio may have been more stacked than Florida was.
NEWSWEEK:So you think Blackwell stole the election for Bush?
It was under his domain to have enough machines; the machine calibration, tabulation issue. You could rig the machines. We have reason to believe it was rigged.
NEWSWEEK:What is your evidence?
Based on distrusting the system, lack of paper trails, the anomaly of the exit polls. In Ukraine, there’s an exit poll gap, they say, “Let’s have another election.”
NEWSWEEK:Have you been in touch with John Kerry about the issue? Does he share your concerns?
His lawyers are now involved in a minimal way. We are appealing to him to get involved. We think it should be certified provisionally, until there can be a forensic investigation of these machines, and until there’s a random recount. In only two of the counties did they do any hand recounting.
NEWSWEEK:What can be done now?
Thursday is when Congress is scheduled to certify the vote. Kerry should take the floor and ask for a debate on the subject. Kerry pulled out too early. The scrutiny pulled out with him.
NEWSWEEK:If the election were held again with these alleged problems solved, would Kerry win?
Of course I think that. If we deal with the anomalies, a fair random count, the urban-suppressed vote, Kerry would get at least 60,000 more votes. At least! I believe that. I don’t know that.
NEWSWEEK:Is it possible that election will be overturned?
I don’t know. All we want is a fair count and a transparent election. We can live with the result. We’re fighting the odds but we will not faint in the face of the odds.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
Conyers and friends will officially protest the votes in the House. A Senator has yet to sign on to keep the ball rolling.
- Nan
From the National Voting Rights Institute, including a link to Conyer's Report:
The National Voting Rights Institute
Protecting the Right to Vote for All Americans
NVRI E-News Update - January 5, 2005
Dear, Nan Bozzolo:
Happy new year.
As Congress prepares tomorrow to receive the electors' votes for President, Congressman John Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff today issued a powerful report entitled "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio." The report says "We have found numerous, serious irregularities ... which resulted in significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, wihch affected hundreds of thousands of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004 were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards."
It is indeed premature for Congress to accept electors votes from the state of Ohio, absent a fair recount of ballots. Through the work NVRI has done on behalf of a recount -- and on behalf of 2004 presidential candidates David Cobb (Green Party) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) -- we have found inconsistent, erratic and questionable recounting techniques, and have asked a Federal judge in Ohio to order a new recount. We don't expect the judge to rule soon on that, but continue to push.
Meanwhile, Congressman John Conyers and others have announced that they will object to the Ohio electors. If the Congressman is joined by any U.S. Senator in that objection, Congress will recess, at which point there will be two-hour hearings in each chamber to consider whether or not to accept the objection. If the objection is denied, the tally of votes continues. If it is accepted, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election.
To read the Conyers report, go to http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_conyers_report_010505.pdf. It's powerful, thorough, and presents a powerful call for change. In addition to continuing our fight in Ohio, NVRI is committed to seeing through the kinds of changes talked about here.
And thanks to all of you for your support of our efforts. Please circulate this notice to friends and colleagues. And if you don't already subscribe to the e-updates, do so by visiting http://www.nvri.org/about/new.shtml#sign.
Best Regards,
Stu
Stuart Comstock-Gay
Executive Director
National Voting Rights Institute
617-624-3900
scg@nvri.org
National Voting Rights Institute
27 School Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02186
Phone: (617) 624-3900 ¤ Fax: (617) 624-3911
http://www.nvri.org ¤ nvri@nvri.org
Rumor is that Sen. Boxer (D-California) will be objecting in the Senate! Carl seems to have the inside scoop...
- Nan
If you haven't heard, Sen. Boxer has chosen to sign on to the objection of Ohio's votes as the Senate's representative. It was met with mild applause. There was some debate on the floor, mainly concluding that this is a waste of time.
I'm watching the vote on the objection in the Senate on C-SPAN right now. Ohio Senators Dewine and Voinovich have both voted against the objections. As of now, Sen. Boxer from California is the only one voting in the affirmative. I think one other Senator may have now voted for the objection, but I didn't recongize the name. Many Senators are not present, including John Kerry. Sen. Reid has now voted against it. Hmmm, an intersting conversation between Sen. Lott and Sen. Leahy on the floor. I wish I could hear that one. Sen. Lott is doing all the talking. Sen. Biden = No. Sen. Obama says "No." Mr. Kennedy: NO. Mr. Harkin: Nope. Senators Liebermann and Clinton: No. Okay, I'm going back to work.
By the way, here's an interesting new site for the Inauguration: http://inaugural.senate.gov/
Post a Comment
<< Home