NYT: House Democrats to Object to Florida Election Outcome

[brooklynite]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 — Democrats said Friday that they would open the new Congress by formally objecting to the election result in Florida’s 13th District, in the hope that the Democrat who is contesting the narrow outcome there will ultimately take the place of the Republican whom the state has certified as the winner.

The move will not prevent the Republican, Vern Buchanan, from taking office with the rest of the 110th Congress next Thursday. But Democrats say that because the House is the final certifier of House election results, they want to make certain that Mr. Buchanan’s swearing-in does not prejudice a legal challenge mounted by his opponent, Christine Jennings.

The Democrats say that if they were to make no such objection, formally called a parliamentary inquiry, they would essentially be signaling the courts that the House agreed with the state-certified result. By contrast, their move will put the House on record as supporting Ms. Jennings’s challenge.

That move requires no House vote, only the approval of the chair, presumably Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who is to become speaker next week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/us/politics/30elect.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Finally - Some Sanity With Regard To Electronic Voting!

eom

[Peace Patriot]

2. Thank heavens! A hopeful event in the darkness of BushWorld!

Ye-e-e-e-e-es!

[Kagemusha]

3. It's likely that once seated, there'll be no way to get the 'winner' out later

except by 2/3rds vote for removal, which presumably must be for some sort of bad conduct. I think there's legal precedent to that effect? But, this at least gives the courts an incentive to actually make a ruling, rather than say, "The point is moot, the winner has been seated and nothing can be changed now because Congress said so." ...Not that I'd be surprised if a court said that even now but, well, better than nothing, right?

The system's messy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. In your dreams, Kag.

[Kagemusha]

11. Excuse me?

You mistake what I've honestly heard about the matter for some sort of desire for the Democrat to not win a disputed election. I'm sorry, that's insulting without a basis in truth for doing so. We'll see what happens either way I guess.

Edit: From a Kos poster named Buckeye Terry on a related thread:

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

[eomer]

24. Jennings has contested the election in the House under the FCEA

which means that ultimately the House will resolve the contest by way of a simple majority vote (not a 2/3rds vote).

All matters involving contested elections are initially handled by the Committee on House Administration, which is given jurisdiction of such matters by the rules of the House. Its guidance is the Federal Contested Election Act (P.L. 91-138, 83 Stat. 284), enacted in 1969. That law explains the process, starting with the filing of a notice of contest by the loser of the election, the taking of testimony from witnesses, and the holding of hearings on the depositions and papers filed with the Clerk of the House related to the dispute. The statute also places the burden of proof on the challenger to show that sufficient evidence exists to change the outcome of the election results.

The process of examining a contested election can also be initiated by any Member on the floor who wishes to challenge the legitimacy of another Member's taking of the oath of office. The challenge, in the form of a resolution, is then referred to the Committee on House Administration for review. Individual electors from the state in question may also petition the House for a review of the election.

After the House Administration Committee completes its examination of the election, it issues a report to the full House, in the form of a resolution with recommendations, which the House then adopts or rejects by a simple majority vote. According to the precedents of the House, the resolution can:

• dismiss the challenge
  
• declare which candidate is entitled to the seat
  
• assert that no one should be seated pending the completion of an investigation
  
• call for a new election to be held
  
• refute the challenger as not qualified to contest the election
  
• provide reimbursement for the contestants from the contingency fund of the House for costs incurred in the contested election process.
  

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly93.asp

[Kagemusha]

26. Interesting... thank you...

Perhaps the legal precedent I heard about concerning a lawmaker who the courts said had to be thrown out only by 2/3rds majority, was superceded by the law enacted in 1969? That's why I hate seeing legal precedent thrown out without the whole picture. Really distorts things.

Since the House is, as far as I am aware, the final arbiter as long as it's clear what its rules are in the matter, I would dearly hope this 1969 act would settle the matter.

[pacalo]

4. 18,000 "undervotes" -- helllooo?! This should have been handled at the state level.

[brooklynite]

7. I think it is...

but while this is working its way through the Courts, the House is swearing in its members, and needs to make a statement about the validity of the election.

[pacalo]

22. Their idea of handling the 18,000-vote discrepancy was to *certify* the election.

Sorry, I'm just still astounded at that fact alone -- that Jeb's secretary of state could put her stamp of approval on that election & send a man to congress based on an eye-glaring "glitch" in the voting. 18,000 ballots failed to record votes for either candidate, yet the secretary of state treated it as business as usual.

[depakid]

5. Sounds like yet another Democratic cop out to me

After 6 years of hearing just about every rationalization in the book, I'm not expecting much change from the leadership. I hope I'm wrong- and I suppose we shall see.

[brentspeak]

25. Wait a minute. What "cop out" are you referring to?

I don't see a "cop out" in the article.

[mzmolly]

6. Jutzpa! Ya gotta love it!

Ms. Jennings has said she intends to take a seat that is rightfully hers, and she even attended freshman orientation for new House members in November. Legal filings on her behalf say she would have won by 3,000 votes if the tallies had been done properly.

:toast:

[bleever]

9. All hail Land Shark, whose suit in CA-50

affirmed the idea that the House determines the qualifications of its members.

House Dems are formally preempting the assumption that once a member is seated, that's it.

Hastert did that with Bilbray so everyone would shut up or be a "sore loser". The lawsuit deferred to the House's right to determine the qualifications of its members.

The House is now seizing that prerogative and preserving it, even through the provisional seating of Vern Buchanan.

Excellent.

[DemReadingDU]

10. WooHoo!

:woohoo:

[Higans]

12. House Democrats to Object to Florida Election Outcome

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 — Democrats said Friday that they would open the new Congress by formally objecting to the election result in Florida’s 13th District, in the hope that the Democrat who is contesting the narrow outcome there will ultimately take the place of the Republican whom the state has certified as the winner.

The move will not prevent the Republican, Vern Buchanan, from taking office with the rest of the 110th Congress next Thursday. But Democrats say that because the House is the final certifier of House election results, they want to make certain that Mr. Buchanan’s swearing-in does not prejudice a legal challenge mounted by his opponent, Christine Jennings.

The Democrats say that if they were to make no such objection, formally called a parliamentary inquiry, they would essentially be signaling the courts that the House agreed with the state-certified result. By contrast, their move will put the House on record as supporting Ms. Jennings’s challenge.

That move requires no House vote, only the approval of the chair, presumably Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who is to become speaker next week.

“No one who’s in a disputed election like this should get too comfortable in the House of Representatives,” Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, said in announcing the new majority’s plan on Friday. “The evidence will show that a revote is necessary.”

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/us/politics/30elect.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Higans]

13. Personally, I think Touch Screens should join the Tea in Boston Harbor.

[VegasWolf]

14. I have no trouble with touch screen, I have major issues with proprietary code and no

paper trail for a permanent record. The movie "Hacking Democracy" is a great video detailing the nefarious workings of the Diebold Corporation. You use a touch screen when you use an ATM, you also get a paper receipt if you want it. That way, when you withdraw $40 from your account at Bank of America they cannot claim you withdrew $200.

[NotGivingUp]

21. touch screens are crap regardless of a paper trail

[VegasWolf]

23. Care to elaborate with a responsible technical argument? nt

[TaleWgnDg]

15. Ummmm, I'm staunchly against touch screens myself, but . . .

dump 'em in your harbor not in Boston's. Thankyouverymuch.

[Higans]

16. Ha, Ha, Sorry about that...

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. There is another way...

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/our_solution

[GeneCosta]

17. House Democrats to Object to Florida Election Outcome

"House Democrats to Object to Florida Election Outcome"

Should have done that in 2000.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Some of them did

The problem was that no Senators did.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.05.html

...
GORE: The chair thanks the gentleman from Florida for his courtesy. Since the present objection lacks the signature of a senator, accordingly, the objection may not be received.
...

[NotGivingUp]

20. Hooray!!!

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. We need an investigation

into how the voting process has become so corrupted.