And here I thought those moonbats were crazy
It looks like the Bush administration was looking for authority to delay November elections in case of a terror attack:
U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.
“I think it’s excessive based on what we know,” said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.
Harman said Ridge’s threat warning “was a bust” because it was based on old information.
Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.
Now, having a backup plan is probably not a bad idea but this just seems entirely inappropriate. I would hope that such decisions were up to congress or the people.
July 12th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
I don’t see what’s wrong with the DOJ looking into the issue to see what authority they have. If they conclude they have none, then it’s up to Congress and the state Legislatures to come up with a backup plan.
Personally, I’d prefer to see all states go to all-mail voting. That way, there’d be nothing for the terrorists to disrupt.
July 12th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
Should a terrorist attack occur on the morning of election day, it woud most likely impact a major metropolitan area (e.g. New York, Chicago, LA).
These are major Democratic voting regions. Can you imagine the outrage if GWB insisted the election take place with millions of dem voters unable to get to the polls due to terrorist activity?
There should definitely be a plan on the books – and it should be in the hands of The Congress, not the prez.
July 12th, 2004 at 3:52 pm
When first I heard of this issue, I was infuriated. This looks like compromising yet another part of the constitution.
On second thought, it sounds like a warning to Al Quaeda, “interfere with our elections and the Bush gang will definately stay in power.” Somehow I suspect that that’d be a deterrent but that’s just me…
July 12th, 2004 at 5:19 pm
Election Contingencies
A few bloggers are concerned that the White House and the Office of Homeland Security are looking into postponing the election in case of terrorist attack. They smell a rat, and Josh Marshall says The rationale is that we need to have some policy in pl…
July 12th, 2004 at 5:43 pm
Xrlq:
Not sure about all-mail-in voting. How could you do that while guaranteeing that (1) nobody votes more than once; (2) everybody votes in the appropriate district; and (3) everyone’s vote remains totally anonymous?
July 12th, 2004 at 9:37 pm
Mail one ballot only to each registered voter, at the registered address (and therefore, with the appropriate district races). Require the voter to certify on the outside of the envelope that he was the one who cast the enclosed ballot. If the ballot is legible to the naked eye, include a second envelope inside, so that the registrar employee who confirms that J. Schmoe has voted will not see who Mr. Schmoe voted for. It works in California and Oregon, why not everywhere else?
July 13th, 2004 at 4:29 pm
Xrlq:
I’m not sure that “it works” in California and Oregon, and even if it does, it may help that volume is relatively low. But I remain open to the idea. I wouldn’t do away with voting in person, however. Just seems “wrong” to me, even if I can’t put a finger on why.
July 13th, 2004 at 5:53 pm
Let me put it this way: I am not aware of any voting irregularities in California or Oregon, relative to the rest of the country, that result from people voting by mail. I don’t know what percentage of Californians vote that way (I do), but I do know what percentage of Oregon residents do: all of them.
July 14th, 2004 at 11:43 am
Xrlq:
but I do know what percentage of Oregon residents do: all of them.
Well, the 35% or so of them who vote, anyway. š
Back to the original topic, I thought elections were explicitly a state matter and not a federal one.