Burnt Orange Report

June 30, 2004

GOP Planning on Cancelling Elections?

By Andrew Dobbs

Now, I hate to be the one fanning the flames of paranoia but soon I'm going to be joining the tin foil hat wearers if I have to keep reading shit like this:

The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns...

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.

"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."

Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.

"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said...

"The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?" he said.

Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.

"There's got to be communication," he said, "between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November."

Let's see here, where to begin... The reason we don't have anyone in charge of cancelling elections is because in a democracy you don't cancel elections. Do I think that it is likely that Bush would cancel elections? Probably not. But does a part of me fear a Reichstag fire kind of situation? You bet. I swear to God, every day of this administration has me running for my dogeared copy of 1984. John Kerry in 2004 (or whenever Election Day is...)

Posted by Andrew Dobbs at June 30, 2004 03:16 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I hope I'm not playing into the hands of potential (or fully realized) facists when I suggest that it might be a good idea to have something in place for if there is a major disaster (of any sort) on Election Day proper.

Posted by: Bellman at June 30, 2004 04:49 PM

In the past, there has been bad weather be it blizzards, or maybe hurricanes or whatnot. Those can be major disasters but we don't move around election day because one part of the country has bad weather. In fact, bad weather disasters would likly affect more voters than any terrorist attack ever could.

Knocking out the Trade Center disrupts downtown Manhattan in a big way. A blizzard disrupts the entire Northeast in a Big Way.

Posted by: Karl-T. at June 30, 2004 07:45 PM

If the administration uses "national security" as an excuse to call off elections, the reaction may make the country impossible for the Bushies to govern and they may have to leave office anyway. By comparison, the 1960s would seem tranquil.

Posted by: Tim Z at June 30, 2004 09:13 PM

WELL WE CAN ALWAYS VOTE FOR SOME DEAD CONGRESSMEN, OR MAYBE THE DEAD CAN VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. OF COURSE WE NEED A PROCEEDURE AGREED TO BY BOTH MAJOR PARTIES FOR SOME EVENT IN WHICH MANY PERRISH. NEW YORK'S MAYORS RACE WAS DELAYED IN 2001. THE DATE IS NOT IMPORTANT, THE VOTE IS, EVEN THOUGH THE TURNOUT IS DISAPPOINTING.

Posted by: peter at July 1, 2004 01:25 AM

Election day is set by Act of Congress - the President cannot change it unilaterally - it would require an act of Congress.

BTW, Peter, using all caps is kind of annoying. Being the armchair psychiatrist that I am, I must ask, "Having some self-esteem problems such that you need to draw attention to yourself?"

As an aside, I always thought that those using all caps in blogs are like people that drive SUVs: they fall into one of two categories - (i) women with penis envy; and (ii) men with little dicks. (I can already hear the chauvanist accusations coming).

Posted by: WhoMe? at July 1, 2004 08:22 AM

WELL WE CAN ALWAYS VOTE FOR SOME DEAD CONGRESSMEN

In 2000, the people of Missouri chose a dead governor over a live senator. That senator happened to be John Ashcroft.

I'll take a dead Democrat over a brain dead (but nominally alive) Republican any day.

Posted by: Tim Z. at July 1, 2004 08:35 AM

Cancelling an election will be a lot easier than stealing one. No matter who runs for president - a rich white MAN wins. 9-11 WAS the American Reichstag Fire, and all the Media does is play the Horst Wessel song. Emma Goldman was right: "...if voting could actually change anything, it would be illegal".

Posted by: Wanagi Yamni at July 12, 2004 04:34 AM

That is what they did in Brazil, they cancel for a short period of time, and craft th e papers in a legal matter that was ilegal just rally vor elections. it took 35 years to get fre elections back. meanwhile under a strong militar dictatorship the country was sold to the bigest corporations by the corrpts militar. and now brazil is a miserable country.

wake up america !!!