Plans Being Drawn To Delay U.s. Election
The_Finch
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8498Members
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8498Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Hachi Machi!</div> <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html' target='_blank'>Officials Discuss How to Delay Elections</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3885663.stm' target='_blank'>U.S. May Delay Vote if Attacked</a>
The BBC article says:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US 'may delay vote if attacked'
The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack.
US counter-terrorism officials are examining what steps would be needed to permit a delay, Newsweek reports.
Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge last week warned al-Qaeda was planning to attack the US to disrupt the poll but conceded he had no precise information.
A senior Democrat in Congress has said talk of postponement is "excessive".
Doomsday scenarios
In its latest edition, Newsweek reports that Mr Ridge has asked the Justice Department to examine what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the 2 November election.
This follows a letter from the chairman of the new Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries, who urged Mr Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress that would allow his agency to reschedule the vote in the event of an attack.
Mr Soaries noted that while New York's board of elections suspended primary elections on 11 September 2001, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told Newsweek, "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."
Republican Representative Christopher Cox, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that it was prudent to prepare for a postponement.
"These are doomsday scenarios. We don't have any intelligence to suggest that it is going to happen, but we're preparing for all of these contingencies now."
Old information
But Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said proposing a postponement would be "excessive based on what we know".
She also criticised Mr Ridge's suggestion that al-Qaeda was planning to disrupt the election, saying the warning was based on old information.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the Democrats' unspoken fear is that the White House will play on the nerves of Americans as the election nears, hoping to gain support from a nation fearful of any change in course.
It is a difficult strategy for the Democrats to counter.
If they appeared complacent and terrorists did strike, they would be politically destroyed, he says.
No US presidential election has ever been postponed.
Abraham Lincoln was urged by some aides to suspend the election of 1864 - during the US Civil War - but despite the expectation that he would lose, he refused.
"The election is a necessity," Lincoln said. "We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered us."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does everybody think about this?
Personally, I think it's a butchery of American democracy. Federal elections are <i>never</i> delayed, nor should they be. I think the Bush administration is using vague, outdated threats in order to cow the public into voting Bush.
Another thing is that there's no mention of how long any delay would be. Two days? A week? A month? Four years? Until the amorphous "War on Terror" is over?
I'm rather choleric about this, if you couldn't tell.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3885663.stm' target='_blank'>U.S. May Delay Vote if Attacked</a>
The BBC article says:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US 'may delay vote if attacked'
The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack.
US counter-terrorism officials are examining what steps would be needed to permit a delay, Newsweek reports.
Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge last week warned al-Qaeda was planning to attack the US to disrupt the poll but conceded he had no precise information.
A senior Democrat in Congress has said talk of postponement is "excessive".
Doomsday scenarios
In its latest edition, Newsweek reports that Mr Ridge has asked the Justice Department to examine what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the 2 November election.
This follows a letter from the chairman of the new Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries, who urged Mr Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress that would allow his agency to reschedule the vote in the event of an attack.
Mr Soaries noted that while New York's board of elections suspended primary elections on 11 September 2001, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told Newsweek, "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."
Republican Representative Christopher Cox, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that it was prudent to prepare for a postponement.
"These are doomsday scenarios. We don't have any intelligence to suggest that it is going to happen, but we're preparing for all of these contingencies now."
Old information
But Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said proposing a postponement would be "excessive based on what we know".
She also criticised Mr Ridge's suggestion that al-Qaeda was planning to disrupt the election, saying the warning was based on old information.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the Democrats' unspoken fear is that the White House will play on the nerves of Americans as the election nears, hoping to gain support from a nation fearful of any change in course.
It is a difficult strategy for the Democrats to counter.
If they appeared complacent and terrorists did strike, they would be politically destroyed, he says.
No US presidential election has ever been postponed.
Abraham Lincoln was urged by some aides to suspend the election of 1864 - during the US Civil War - but despite the expectation that he would lose, he refused.
"The election is a necessity," Lincoln said. "We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered us."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does everybody think about this?
Personally, I think it's a butchery of American democracy. Federal elections are <i>never</i> delayed, nor should they be. I think the Bush administration is using vague, outdated threats in order to cow the public into voting Bush.
Another thing is that there's no mention of how long any delay would be. Two days? A week? A month? Four years? Until the amorphous "War on Terror" is over?
I'm rather choleric about this, if you couldn't tell.
Comments
Such thinking is doubleplusungood. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Various congressmen have actually put in an appeal to the UN to preside over our elections coming up "to prevent what happened in 2000".
The UN has no business in our electoral process at all - down with world government. What happened in 2000 was fair and just, as outlined by our process. It was a close race, but there was a winner - and dems all over the US need to understand that.
Not to hyjack the thread, but both sides have their tricks up their sleevs. If you are going to point fingers at one, point them at both.
How about a plan to provide security for the polling places? Might that make more sense?
Various congressmen have actually put in an appeal to the UN to preside over our elections coming up "to prevent what happened in 2000".
The UN has no business in our electoral process at all - down with world government. What happened in 2000 was fair and just, as outlined by our process. It was a close race, but there was a winner - and dems all over the US need to understand that.
Not to hyjack the thread, but both sides have their tricks up their sleevs. If you are going to point fingers at one, point them at both. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seconded.
Various congressmen have actually put in an appeal to the UN to preside over our elections coming up "to prevent what happened in 2000".
The UN has no business in our electoral process at all - down with world government. What happened in 2000 was fair and just, as outlined by our process. It was a close race, but there was a winner - and dems all over the US need to understand that.
Not to hyjack the thread, but both sides have their tricks up their sleevs. If you are going to point fingers at one, point them at both. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
what part do the dems play in this one then?
Various congressmen have actually put in an appeal to the UN to preside over our elections coming up "to prevent what happened in 2000".
The UN has no business in our electoral process at all - down with world government. What happened in 2000 was fair and just, as outlined by our process. It was a close race, but there was a winner - and dems all over the US need to understand that.
Not to hyjack the thread, but both sides have their tricks up their sleevs. If you are going to point fingers at one, point them at both. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seconded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
excellent post pepe
A terrorist attack would probably swing votes to the Democrats, as what similarly happened in Spain after the heinous train attack.
Of course, then Bush would just postpone the election, so that he can still lead the country and regain whatever credibility (crudibility) he can muster.
Slick yet sad if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The UN has no business in our electoral process at all - down with world government. What happened in 2000 was fair and just, as outlined by our process. It was a close race, but there was a winner - and dems all over the US need to understand that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, I see no connection between the Democrats and this (you mean Democrat congressmen? Source/Citation?). Secondly, even if I am to assume they somehow do, it wouldn't be any different than U.S. policy in the past and present of toppling leaderships of foreign countries and soverign nations. So somehow they can't mess with our government, but we can mess with everybody else's government AND dismiss the UN at the same time...
"It seems we live both sides of the same hypocrisy." -Godfather Part II.
Edit/PS: I'm surprised one/two word replies are given in the <i>"Discussion" </i>Forum.
The UN has no business in our electoral process at all - down with world government. What happened in 2000 was fair and just, as outlined by our process. It was a close race, but there was a winner - and dems all over the US need to understand that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, I see no connection between the Democrats and this (you mean Democrat congressmen? Source/Citation?). Secondly, even if I am to assume they somehow do, it wouldn't be any different than U.S. policy in the past and present of toppling leaderships of foreign countries and soverign nations. So somehow they can't mess with our government, but we can mess with everybody else's government AND dismiss the UN at the same time... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is one article. There are many.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congressional group wants U.N. to monitor presidential election
By Todd J. Gillman
<i>The Dallas Morning News</i>
Saturday, July 03, 2004
<b>WASHINGTON — Still smarting from the 2000 Florida recount, a group of congressional Democrats led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas has asked the United Nations to monitor this year's presidential election.</b>
"We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy," the legislators wrote to Secretary General Kofi Annan.
While the request might evoke images of blue-helmeted peacekeepers outside the local library, the request won't be granted.
"Generally, the United Nations does not intervene in electoral affairs unless the request comes from a national government or an electoral authority — not the legislative branch," said U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe.
Because the U.N. Charter bars violations of sovereignty, the State Department, or perhaps the Federal Election Commission, would have to invite observers. And monitoring would have to be approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly.
None of the five permanent Security Council members has ever been subjected to such monitoring, officials said. The rule of thumb is one observer for each 100 polling sites, which would be an army of 2,000 foreigners deployed from Key West to Anchorage.
Johnson aides call the request justified. Her letter points to "widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement" in Florida and other states in 2000, and it cites an April report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that found potential for "significant problems" this time around.
Annan was in Africa, and it was unclear whether he had seen the letter. Johnson was among a half-dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus to sign it.
There is ample evidence that problems laid bare in 2000 persist.
Only $650 million of $3 billion Congress authorized for election reform since 2000 has reached states. Yesterday, The Miami Herald reported that more than 2,100 eligible voters still appear on the state's list of purged felons.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Such thinking is doubleplusungood. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? I shouldn't be angry that for the first time in America's history, elections could be suspended for an unspecified amount of time? I don't like the fact that somebody is actually making plans to do this.
Does anybody actually think that delaying/cancelling elections would be a good thing if there was a terrorist attack?
This is pure politics. *spit*
I disagree, a terrorist attack will just be a final push for those on the fence. Some will go to Kerry and others will go to Bush. We are not Spain, and will not react accordingly.
As for the postponing the election or asking for the UN to oversee it, I am against both ideas. Though if the attacking is big enough(casualties in the thousands), I could see why there would be a desire to postpone it. That said, I agree with Spooge. There needs to be a plan in place to deal with attacks specifically aimed at disrupting our election process.
What? I shouldn't be angry that for the first time in America's history, elections could be suspended for an unspecified amount of time? I don't like the fact that somebody is actually making plans to do this.
Does anybody actually think that delaying/cancelling elections would be a good thing if there was a terrorist attack? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would stop bush from indefinetly delaying the elections if this were to happen even just once? Hellllooooooooo big brother.
BTW: These are 1984 references, great book if you haven't dove into it yet.
Edit: On second thought... Bring it on. I've been looking for a reason to revolt and start the country over with a clean slate.
This is pure politics. *spit* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spooge is correct.
We have all sorts of doomsday scenerio's, ranging from alien invasion (I'm assuming on this one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) to nuclear war. This isn't anything new.
It doesn't look like Bush is trying to pull anything at all.
Furthermore, that article upon having the U.N. 'watch' over us is complete bullcrap and shows the dems would rather trust another country than their own.
Now <i>that</i> is repulsive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What would stop bush from indefinetly delaying the elections if this were to happen even just once? Hellllooooooooo big brother.
BTW: These are 1984 references, great book if you haven't dove into it yet.
Edit: On second thought... Bring it on. I've been looking for a reason to revolt and start the country over with a clean slate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, but anyone with half a brain would know that 1984's references are to communism, socialism, and liberalism, not facism. So really, 1984 isn't comparible in this situation.
Various congressmen have actually put in an appeal to the UN to preside over our elections coming up "to prevent what happened in 2000".
The UN has no business in our electoral process at all - down with world government. What happened in 2000 was fair and just, as outlined by our process. It was a close race, but there was a winner - and dems all over the US need to understand that.
Not to hyjack the thread, but both sides have their tricks up their sleevs. If you are going to point fingers at one, point them at both. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seconded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow you are soo right, why would the democrats want a recount? That seems like a mind boggle to me. It doesn't make any sense what so ever they were just delaying the inevitable!
No, there couldn't have been any possibility where districts had thousands of voters that were Democrat yet since the cards were punched out wrong, they weren't counted.
I mean, after the election and after a final analysis of what happened in florida, it showed that thousands of votes had been thrown out! Most of the districts that were affected by this were HEAVILY democratic.
Anyways, back to what the topic was originally about, delaying the election is just another scare tactic that the republicans are trying to use for more support. In fact, thats all the republicans really have to work off of.
I think it would be pretty stupid to delay it, if we did have a terrorist attack, it would just show that no one can stop democracy and that the United States is strong. If we delayed it, it would show that we are weak, and it might encourage more attacks.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm... no. It's references are to any totalitarian regime, regardless of ideology. Orwells was ticked when people kept thinking that his book was directed towards communism. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion, but it's just something I remember reading from the preface.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are too stupid to vote correctly, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are too stupid to vote correctly, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right that they are so stupid they can't figure out how to vote correctly but as I remember, that's not what this country is founded upon. Everything should be fair and equal, if someone finds voting to be to hard, it should be made easier and more understandable.
Also, booya!!
Check out this <a href='http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5660631' target='_blank'>news</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are too stupid to vote correctly, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I looked at those ballots the first time, I was confused.
Granted, I probably would have figured them out, and I'm not a genius, but if I were in any kind of a hurry I might have screwed it up.
<img src='http://www.psephoscorp.com/BallotFrame.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are too stupid to vote correctly, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My, what a gross oversimplification.
<a href='http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm' target='_blank'>It's a bit more complicated than that.</a>
Excerpt, from a report by the US Commission on Civil Rights, emphasis mine:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Accordingly, the Commission is duty bound to report, without equivocation, that the analysis presented here supports a disturbing impression that Florida's reliance on a flawed voter exclusion list, combined with the state law placing the burden of removal from the list on the voter, had the result of denying African Americans the right to vote. This analysis also shows that the chance of being placed on this list [of felons ineligible to vote] in error is greater for African Americans. Similarly, the <b>analysis shows a direct correlation between race and having one's vote discounted as a spoiled ballot. In other words, an African American's chance of having his or her vote rejected as a spoiled ballot was significantly greater than a white voter's.</b> Based on the evidence presented to the Commission, there is a strong basis for concluding that section 2 of the VRA [Voting Rights Act] was violated.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_48/b3709017.htm' target='_blank'>Other thoughts.</a>
Excerpt:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In principle, today's voting technology is a match for the challenges of an election. The most commonly used machines are punch-card readers, optical scanners that tally arrows or filled-in ovals on paper ballots, and electronic touch-screen devices. In tests under ideal conditions, these devices are all accurate to within 6 votes in 10 million. But in practice, a change in humidity might cause a punch card or paper ballot to misfeed, or a power surge could erase a vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
'Hanging Chads' can often be the result of <i>machine malfunction</i>, unbeknownst to the person placing their vote.
More:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But these errors are minor compared with those caused by human foibles, such as Palm Beach (Fla.)'s unfortunate ballot design. Even when ballots are crystal clear, election officials say, many voters don't follow instructions, circling a candidate's name on a paper ballot, for instance, instead of connecting an arrow. Nor can ballots left in polling workers' cars be counted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here they demonstrate that 'human error' can occur on both sides of the booth.
So again, close, but no cigar.
Oh, wait-- you weren't even close. Oh well.
edit: 1864 is when half the country was shooting at the other half, FYI. and I believe that to be a more important reason to have postponed an election than another plane hitting an arbitrary city. We have lots of cities.
Excerpt:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Florida faces another debacle in the upcoming presidential election on Nov. 2, with the possibility that thousands of people will be unjustly denied the right to vote, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights heard on Thursday.
In a hearing on the illegal disenfranchisement of alleged felons in Florida, commissioners accused state officials of "extraordinary negligence" in drawing up a list of 48,000 people to be purged from voter rolls, most of them because they may once have committed a crime.
"They have engaged in negligence at best and something worse at worst," said Mary Frances Berry, chairperson of the commission, an independent bipartisan body whose members are appointed by the President and Congress.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm <i>sure</i> this is happening <i>by accident</i> <b>twice</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US lawmakers quash talk of delaying polls
A postponement would be a victory for terrorists; also, a law must be passed for an election to be put off
WASHINGTON - Even if terrorists were to attack on election day, it is highly unlikely that voting could or would be halted across the United States, lawmakers and scholars said yesterday.
Congress could postpone a federal election, but only by passing a law to do so, while the Bush administration has no legal authority to act on its own.
Advertisement
The question arose after Newsweek reported in its July 19 issue that counterterrorism officials were reviewing a proposal that could allow for postponing the election.
But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said yesterday that it had no plans to seek such a delay in the face of heightened fears that Al-Qaeda is planning a large-scale attack to try to influence the election.
'I am unaware of any such efforts,' said Mr Brian Roehrkasse, a department spokesman. 'DHS is not looking into a contingency plan.'
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was even more emphatic.
'Let me just be very clear: I don't know where the idea that there might be some postponement of elections comes from,' she told CNN.
The Homeland Security department has been researching laws and precedents in an effort to gather information, but is not drafting a plan.
An official said the research was prompted by inquiries from the Election Assistance Commission, a little-known federal advisory body whose chairman, Mr DeForest Soaries, pointed out in a letter to the department that no federal agency has the authority to postpone an election.
The US has held elections in the throes of civil and world wars, and several senior lawmakers forcefully rejected the suggestion that this autumn's election might be postponed.
'Were we to postpone the election, it would represent a victory for the terrorists,' said Representative Christopher Cox, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. 'The election is going to go forward.'
Experts said a mechanism for postponing elections should be debated, even if there is little chance it would be needed.
'It is very unlikely that a terrorist incident would disrupt the entire election because it would tend to be localised,' said Mr Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution.
To avoid any appearance of politics tainting the process, Congress probably would have to create a neutral entity to decide whether to postpone elections, said Professor Richard Pildes of the New York University School of Law.
The powers of that body, and the rules for applying them, would have to be spelt out, he noted.
The power to set the times and places of federal elections is shared by the states and Congress, said Mr Mann.
Congress has long required states to hold federal elections on the same day.
If a terrorist attack or a natural disaster strikes a state or city, Mr Mann said, the local authorities have the power to postpone voting. That occurred in New York state on Sept 11, 2001 when local primaries were postponed for two weeks.
Newsweek reported that the Homeland Security department had asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyse the issues raised by Mr Soaries' letter.
But officials of both departments said there was no formal request for an opinion.
'No discussions, formal or informal, have transpired,' said a Justice Department spokesman. -- Los Angeles Times
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I personally think the quote from Representative Cox sums up best how I feel. "'Were we to postpone the election, it would represent a victory for the terrorists. The election is going to go forward." ANY delays to me would be a huge enormous mistake. It would just be showing the terrorists that they can disrupt our electoral processes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US lawmakers quash talk of delaying polls
A postponement would be a victory for terrorists; also, a law must be passed for an election to be put off
WASHINGTON - Even if terrorists were to attack on election day, it is highly unlikely that voting could or would be halted across the United States, lawmakers and scholars said yesterday.
Congress could postpone a federal election, but only by passing a law to do so, while the Bush administration has no legal authority to act on its own.
Advertisement
The question arose after Newsweek reported in its July 19 issue that counterterrorism officials were reviewing a proposal that could allow for postponing the election.
But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said yesterday that it had no plans to seek such a delay in the face of heightened fears that Al-Qaeda is planning a large-scale attack to try to influence the election.
'I am unaware of any such efforts,' said Mr Brian Roehrkasse, a department spokesman. 'DHS is not looking into a contingency plan.'
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was even more emphatic.
'Let me just be very clear: I don't know where the idea that there might be some postponement of elections comes from,' she told CNN.
The Homeland Security department has been researching laws and precedents in an effort to gather information, but is not drafting a plan.
An official said the research was prompted by inquiries from the Election Assistance Commission, a little-known federal advisory body whose chairman, Mr DeForest Soaries, pointed out in a letter to the department that no federal agency has the authority to postpone an election.
The US has held elections in the throes of civil and world wars, and several senior lawmakers forcefully rejected the suggestion that this autumn's election might be postponed.
'Were we to postpone the election, it would represent a victory for the terrorists,' said Representative Christopher Cox, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. 'The election is going to go forward.'
Experts said a mechanism for postponing elections should be debated, even if there is little chance it would be needed.
'It is very unlikely that a terrorist incident would disrupt the entire election because it would tend to be localised,' said Mr Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution.
To avoid any appearance of politics tainting the process, Congress probably would have to create a neutral entity to decide whether to postpone elections, said Professor Richard Pildes of the New York University School of Law.
The powers of that body, and the rules for applying them, would have to be spelt out, he noted.
The power to set the times and places of federal elections is shared by the states and Congress, said Mr Mann.
Congress has long required states to hold federal elections on the same day.
If a terrorist attack or a natural disaster strikes a state or city, Mr Mann said, the local authorities have the power to postpone voting. That occurred in New York state on Sept 11, 2001 when local primaries were postponed for two weeks.
Newsweek reported that the Homeland Security department had asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyse the issues raised by Mr Soaries' letter.
But officials of both departments said there was no formal request for an opinion.
'No discussions, formal or informal, have transpired,' said a Justice Department spokesman. -- Los Angeles Times
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I personally think the quote from Representative Cox sums up best how I feel. "'Were we to postpone the election, it would represent a victory for the terrorists. The election is going to go forward." ANY delays to me would be a huge enormous mistake. It would just be showing the terrorists that they can disrupt our electoral processes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh hey!! Wow isn't that what I just said a couple posts back before they actually said it themselves? Wow, aren't the republicans really trying to get desperate with his puny attempts at scaring the public into voting for them.
Its kinda sad if you think about it.
The important part here is that they are thinking ahead - and the idea was shot down - so what. Our country has never had to deal with terrorism through an election before, this is brand new, and they are thinking about it.
As it stands now, I think, a nation wide delay will not happen. However, a state wide delay is still a possiblity (and rightly so). Who here would have wanted to vote for anyone the day after 9-11? A delay is necessary - especially for the people immediatly involved. However, national delay is not.
And the republicans got it right.