Bush Administration Mulling How to Delay Election

[PSU84]

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network may attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

The magazine cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the day of the election.

The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the magazine said.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government such power, Newsweek reported in its latest issue that hits the newsstands on Monday.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1895&u=/nm/20040711/us_nm/politics_election_terror_dc&printer=1

[Zynx]

1. The dates of elections are set in the constitution. They can't change them

[DieboldMustDie]

2. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections...

for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators."
-- United States Constitution: Article. I, Section. 4, Clause 1.

Re. the Presidential election:

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing (sic) the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."
-- Article. II, Section. 1, Clause 4.

:shrug:

[Dookus]

6. not true

Congress can set the date for elections. The requirements are that they be held before the term ends, and that they all be held on the same day.

I think people are really getting overwrought here. The fact is, if a large percentage of the population were unable to get to the polls on election day, FOR ANY REASON, then it's reasonable to hold the election later, but as soon as possible. Imagine large attacks in the Democratic areas of several key swing states: we'd all be clamoring for a chance to let those people vote.

Delaying the election has ZERO effect on the President's term of office.

There's really nothing wrong with preparing for such a contingency, provided that the requirements for doing so are declared up front, that Congress decides; not an appointed individual, and that its clear and obvious purpose is to PROTECT the vote.

[flaminbats]

8. There doesn't have to be a popular election for President....

Congress could simply pass legislation to delay state elections until late December or early January, then change the date for states to appoint Electors and the time for those Electors to vote for a President.


The real question is why would Republicans cut their own throats like this? A move to delay elections by Republicans would only scream loudly for all Americans as a complete lack of confidence in their own ability to govern, but it would also unnerve millions of their most loyal conservative voters. To put it another way, this is a type of political suicide that I doubt even Lee Atwater would have embraced.

But no matter how hard they try, they cannot succeed in delaying elections for 2004...but may for 2008. Most states have it written into their laws and Constitutions that the candidate who wins the popular vote will also win all those Electoral votes. Changing this would require a Constitutional Amendment...like one which would abolish the Electoral College. ;)

[Freya]

10. No

"But no matter how hard they try, they cannot succeed in delaying elections for 2004...but may for 2008. Most states have it written into their laws and Constitutions that the candidate who wins the popular vote will also win all those Electoral votes. Changing this would require a Constitutional Amendment...like one which would abolish the Electoral College. ;)"

A federal law is superior to a state constitution. It would require no federal constitutional amendment to override a state constitution - simply a federal statue.

And to the people saying there a set date in the constitution for elections in november - please bother to read the US constitution (which should have been done in grade school) before you presume to tell others what is in it. It only takes 30 mins tops. There is NO set november date mentioned in the constitution. Article 4 leaves it up to the states or the national congress.

[flaminbats]

12. I learn something new everytime I post..

I did know about the Supremacy Clause, just not that federal statues could override a state constitution. I have also read the constitution enough times to have it memorized..although I am not a lawyer!

"There is NO set November date mentioned in the constitution. Article 4 leaves it up to the states or the national congress."

When the Constitution was originally written, the President and Congress were Inaugurated in March..states also chose their Electors in a less uniform manner than they do now. I still believe if there was an attempt by Republicans to delay Federal elections unto January, Democrats would win the largest national landslide since 1964!

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Exactly, if they did there would be a HUGE democratic takeover of congress

Which if chimp did win would mean contesting of the electoral votes and the newly controlled democratic house picking the new president and the newly controlled democratic senate picking the new VP.

[rasputin1952]

3. This nation has never abandoned an election before...

and I don't see that happening now. During the Civil War, elections were held. During WWII elections were held, and during some of the minor conflagarations, elections were held.

If this administration, or any entity of the gov't attempted to delay elections, the nation would instantaneously come together to throw the perpetrators out on their ears, tarred, feathered and on a rail. Even the notion of suspending elections would give deal this administration a death blow. I can't even see the neo-cons accepting that scenario.

BTW: If bin-Laden had been captured in Afghanistan, (remember that place?), this entire discussion would be moot. But the admistration was hell bent on getting Iraqi oil and settling a score against the life of bush the Elder.

[mbee]

4. Fahrenheit 9/11 must just be the tip of the iceberg. These people

must really have something to hide if they are this desperate.

[Maestro]

5. WTF?

After all that has been said and done to tell the American public to live your lives and simply be vigilant, the government is actually going to postpone an election. There would be a revolution!

[kaiso]

7. They better not mess with this, these bastards are capable of anything! nt

[IndianaGreen]

9. If they delay the election, we should storm the White House

and throw all of those rascals out.

The elections were not postponed even during the Civil War. This is nothing more than a cover story to prep the public for another stolen election.

[Freya]

11. If congress does it

it is legal per the constitution. (though it would not be if the executive tried it) You will not get much support from anyone trying to start a civil war for a constitutional act of congress.

I would suggest you start a movement to pass an amendment to repeal Article 4 if you don't want congress to have this power instead of resorting to violence.

I'm sure if the founders didn't want congress to be able to change the election times they would wrote in place of Article 4 "DO NO CHANGE ELECTION DATE PAST NOV 2ND OR THE NATION WILL DIE!!!! WARNINING!!!". But no, they did not, instead they wrote congress can choose whatever time it pleases.

FYI - Amendment XX states that the office of the president MUST be vacated in January. So bush will STILL end up out of office no matter what happens. So even if the goal was to delay for an extremely long period of time he would still be screwed. Therefore I wouldn't worry about them even trying it.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Worst case scenario, we fillibuster chaning the date in the senate

Err actually worst case scenario is that Daschle doesn't have the balls to challenge it and we don't have the 41 senators that we need to maintain a fillibuster. But I don't think that this will likely happen. I see this not getting passed DeLay's house of repukes let alone the senate. Should it get to the senate we'll have 47 democratic Nays + Jeffords, Chafee, probably McCain Snow and Collins, and possibly the Repuke caucus split down the middle.

[feistydem]

15. There seems to be a belief here that a coup is impossible

But we have seen 'impossible' things happen in this country already. These people are drunk with power. Why not a coup? Americans place a high value on their lives, by and large. Will armed Americans storm into a row of armed and armored tanks? Will millions show up to throw them out or will most wait to see if someone else is willing to risk their life in the name of revolution?

What foreign nation will arrive to save us from our own dictator after we've antagonized the world?


Never say never. It leaves you unprepared.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I see a coup happening if * suspends the constitution...

After all, it would be legal.

[flaminbats]

19. I see it happenng if *** doesn't suspend the constitution...

I also see bread and circuses, where many of those unable to find employment or better jobs in the labor market must try to survive on the only on the cheap food and low wages provided by politicians and the wealthy. After all, it would be legal...:yourock:

[annabanana]

17. WW Lincoln Do?

Regarding the postponement of the Nov election, here is some words by Lincoln that bush and his cabal would do well to heed, imo:

Lincoln on the 1864 Presidential Election


Response to a Serenade


November 10, 1864


It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.


On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralized (sic), by a political war among themselves?


But the election was a necessity.


We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.


But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold.

[dusty64]

18. I'm still waiting for

a response from the "opposition", this is outrageous.

[TexasSissy]

20. I believe this is a done deal,if * is not ahead in the polls by 11/2.

These guys will do anything to win. I hope the Dems in Congress can stop this setup.

What is this country coming to.