Presidential Vote Certification Faces Objection


PDA






wildcard
January 5, 2005, 10:36 PM
Presidential Vote Certification Faces Objection

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

WASHINGTON — When the joint session of Congress meets Thursday to certify the Electoral College votes that gave President Bush his second term, several Democratic House members are expected to contest the results.

They may also find support from Sen. Barbara Boxer (search), D-Calif., whose participation under congressional rules would then require senators and representatives to recess to their respective chambers to debate certification.

The action would be the first of its kind in 36 years, but most likely won't add up to more than a procedural delay of the inevitable.

According to the choreography of the certification, after the House is called to order and the senators arrive from their chamber, the joint session begins with Vice President Dick Cheney (search) leading the activities.

The "certificates of vote" from each of the states will be called out and the number of votes designated for president and vice president will be reported on four separate paper tallies. At the end of the reading of all 50 states and the District of Columbia's votes, the four tellers responsible for recording the tallies will compare results and sign off on them. Cheney will then announce the totals and order them into the record.

However, as was also the case in 2001, when more than two dozen Democrats objected to the certification of Florida's disputed election, a new objection is expected this time. At least three House Democrats, Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, John Conyers of Michigan and Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, and possibly several others, are expected to object to the certification of Ohio's 20 Electoral College votes for Bush alleging voting irregularities in the decisive swing state.

If a Senate member also offers an objection, the House and Senate must then withdraw to their chambers so each body can discuss objections made on each state's certification. The discussion can last up to two hours for each state after which time each chamber votes separately on each objection. The two bodies would then return to the joint session to report their respective actions on the objections.

Boxer and several other senators had been approached by the House Democrats to launch the corresponding objection from the Senate that would force the recess of the joint session. An aide to Boxer told FOX News that the two-term senator may join the Democratic representatives or "may very well end up doing something short of it. What that means, I'm not sure yet."

Boxer apparently is not the only senator who was approached to cast an objection, her spokeswoman said, but she does appear to be the only senator to state publicly that she is considering contesting the results. According to informed sources, House Democrats also approached newly elected Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (search) to join the objection. Those sources said Obama has no plans to do so.

Sen. John Kerry, who lost the election to Bush and is currently overseas, said in a letter sent to supporters Wednesday he would not take part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors because, despite widespread reports of voting irregularities, his legal team had "found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."

Kerry said he planned to introduce election reform legislation and push for congressional hearings on the voting irregularities.

Asked about the political wisdom of deciding to join House members in contesting the results, the Boxer aide said, "These are credible folks in the House who say there are real problems out there. They need to shine the light on this. So they made an appeal to the senator for the right to shine the light on it. There are folks who think this is a not a fruitful exercise, because even the results are challenged, it still may not change the outcome, but for two hours, this might at least be worth discussing."

Boxer's consideration of an objection apparently has stirred the pot with new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who according to several sources was very upset with the proposal and tried to prevent a leak of the senator's plan from getting out.

Republicans say Boxer and a handful of leftwing house liberals are grandstanding. One Democratic leadership source also criticized Boxer, suggesting, "It would not be preferable or her to object."

Another Democratic leadership aide told FOX News that there is "not going to be a vote on this," referring to any objections, and explained that instead, Boxer may go the floor to talk about the voting problems that occurred in 2004.

FOX News' Carl Cameron, Julie Asher and Jim Mills and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

If you enjoyed reading about "Presidential Vote Certification Faces Objection" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
January 5, 2005, 10:41 PM
How many ways can you say 'sore losers'?

Preacherman
January 5, 2005, 10:56 PM
Actually, if they want to do this, the Republicans should object to the certification of New York State's vote. The NY electors voted (IIRC) for "John L. Kerry" for President, and there ain't no such person on the slate - the middle initial is wrong! So, if the Dems want to be silly, why shouldn't the Repub's do the same, and make the vote even more in GWB's favor?

:evil:

Unisaw
January 5, 2005, 10:59 PM
That's great news. The Democrats still don't get it!

Standing Wolf
January 5, 2005, 11:48 PM
How many ways can you say 'sore losers'?

Easy. Tally the number of representatives of the Democratic (sic) party. Divide by 3. (Only about a third have any pretence of creativity.)

Sam Adams
January 6, 2005, 11:24 AM
That's great news. The Democrats still don't get it!

Yes, let them look more like arsewholes than they already do.

I like the idea of having NY's Electoral Votes going for John L. Kerry - then Ohio can be handed to John F(ing). Kerry on a silver platter, and it wouldn't change the result: Bush wouldn't have 270, the Congress would vote on it, and Bush would be President anyway.

Oh, and John Conyers of turkey-stealing fame is involved? I think that if he doesn't shut his hole, the Republican leadership ought to hold a news conference about it, during the course of which they nominate Conyers for Turkey of the Year - and then someone steals the turkey, right on live TV, someone who looks like Conyers.

Bruce H
January 6, 2005, 11:41 AM
When they get back to chambers lock the doors and gas the whole bunch. We wouldn't be any worse off with a complete new bunch of worthless in the capitol.

JPL
January 6, 2005, 11:41 AM
"These are credible folks in the House who say there are real problems out there."

Democrats say there are real problems out there, voting irregularities and the like.

What they really mean is that Republicans have finally figured out how to play the election fraud game the same way that Democrats have been playing it for decades.

And much to the horror of Democrats, Republicans are proving to be much better at it.

Therefore, it falls to the Democrats to "protect democracy" by contesting the outcome.

Nehemiah Scudder
January 6, 2005, 11:53 AM
I find the hypocrisy a little funny.

How many people are saying there were problems with the Washington votes, yet say there are no problems with the Ohio votes.

I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to conspiracy theories, but I've seen enough on the Ohio issue to believe there is a problem.

I don't want to believe there was intentional widespread voter disenfranchisement. Maybe there are valid reasons why enough voting machines were not provided, redistricting was done, etc. Maybe the reason is incompitance.

I don't largely care, if the problems get fixed.

2nd Amendment
January 6, 2005, 11:57 AM
Actually the interesting thing to me is I see large evidence of vote problems in Washington. Meanwhile all I see in Ohio are extremists whining because exit polls didn't agree with final tallies. As for actual evidence of problems? less than zero. Not that such reality stopped the extremists from whining for 4 years down in Floriduh.

JPL
January 6, 2005, 01:00 PM
I think the claims of "voter disenfranchisment" in Ohio lose all credibility when you look at the raw numbers of votes cast in that state last year vs. 2000.

The claims that the poor were disenfranchised through lack of voting machines are particularly interesting.

Apparently there were as many voting machines in every precinct in Ohio this year as there were in 2000.

The number of voting machines purchased and made available is normally calculated by historic voting trends for that precinct.

If for the past 5 or 7 or however many elections fewer than 30% of the eligible voters turned out, why should anyone expect that upwards 70% of the eligible voters will turn out for this particular election?

Well, this election was special is the cry.

Right.

Every election is special, or at least it should be.

The only reason people were supposedly disenfranchised by long lines and lack of voting machines in their precincts is because they've been too disinterested and too lazy to take an active political role previously.

I don't know of a state in the union where there's enough money to provide voting machines based on the total number of eligible voters in a precinct.

Mike Irwin complained bitterly to me about waiting in a line for nearly two hours on election day, and he's in one of the most affluent counties in the entire nation.

Maybe the well-off and wealthy are also being disenfranchised?

R.H. Lee
January 6, 2005, 01:04 PM
When they get back to chambers lock the doors and gas the whole bunch. We wouldn't be any worse off with a complete new bunch of worthless in the capitol.
Motion seconded and passed.

jefnvk
January 6, 2005, 01:07 PM
How many people are saying there were problems with the Washington votes, yet say there are no problems with the Ohio votes.

The vote total swung from 100 votes in favor of one to 100 in favor of the other. That's a far cry from going hundreds of thousands in favor of Bush to a few less than the previous number, still having him in the hundreds of thousands.

I bet if Kerry won Ohio by 100 votes, the Democrats would be aying that the Republican should stop delaying the inaugration and putting the country through a legal nughtmare.

why_me
January 6, 2005, 01:17 PM
Dont know about florida in 2000 though. If you dont think there was serious problems in 2000 your a sick brain dead little monkey

JPL
January 6, 2005, 01:43 PM
All thoughts on pulling the plug on the simian life support system aside...

Of course there were problems with the 2000 election.

There have been problems with every national election ever held in the United States.

But, the Republic survives, and has weathered situations far more serious than this.

shermacman
January 6, 2005, 01:51 PM
The crazier the DemocRATs act, the better! They don't have a clue and that is good!

why_me
January 6, 2005, 01:55 PM
.

2nd Amendment
January 6, 2005, 03:40 PM
There were certainly problems in Floriduh. Failure to count military ballots, Dem poll workers handling recounts in a corrupt fashion, Gore's desire to do recounts only in such a way as to benefit himself, forcing the SCOTUS to end it when the Dems continued to try and circumvent Florida election laws, etc.

And while the Repubs may not have a clue, their cluelessness is certainly preferable to the Demonicrat's corruption, immorality and socialistic tendencies. This is demonstrated by the fact the Dems pretty much lost everything they touched for the past two elections.

Thumper
January 6, 2005, 04:53 PM
I shouldn't enjoy this so much, but...

The histrionic delusions of the left are a continued source of glee for me. I'm really glad I'm around to see the death throes of the "progressive" movement.

That crew at DU is hysterical!

CarlS
January 6, 2005, 08:07 PM
There were certainly problems in Floriduh. Failure to count military ballots, Dem poll workers handling recounts in a corrupt fashion, Gore's desire to do recounts only in such a way as to benefit himself, forcing the SCOTUS to end it when the Dems continued to try and circumvent Florida election laws, etc.

And while the Repubs may not have a clue, their cluelessness is certainly preferable to the Demonicrat's corruption, immorality and socialistic tendencies. This is demonstrated by the fact the Dems pretty much lost everything they touched for the past two elections.

Hear! Hear! Very well stated, 2nd Amendment. It is interesting to me that all the problem counties in Florida in 2000 were Dem counties with elected dem Supervisors of Elections. And these counties were only a handful of the total 67 counties in Florida. It tends to lend credibility the the statement that many folks attracted to the dem party are too stupid to vote.

RealGun
January 7, 2005, 08:37 AM
It was procedural nonsense, but there was an important message that election integrity must address that black voters need confidence in the process and the results. I would welcome any moves to eliminate the tired old arguments about discrimination.

What else is needed would be for the Democratic Party to cease being the champion of minorities. That would require additional reasons to be Republican and more moderation in both parties.

ravinraven
January 7, 2005, 09:33 AM
"...lock the doors and gas the whole bunch." Too late. They're already gassed.

rr

Don Gwinn
January 9, 2005, 02:03 AM
This thread went pretty goofy awhile back, between the mass legicide and the debate over monkey euthanasia. :scrutiny:

So I'm closing it. Many PM's have gone out, but of course, you are each special to me in your own way.

If you enjoyed reading about "Presidential Vote Certification Faces Objection" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!