If we get a Senate/House debate going....Who makes the case...

[VTGold]

...Who presents the evidence?

Can any of the lawyers or activists participate?

[mod mom]

1. Certainly members of the House Dem Judiciary Committee are well informed.

[Pam-Moby]

2. Can any of the lawyers or activists participate?

That would be a good question for William Pitt. I do not know the answer.

[bemis12]

3. Set in the law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000017----000-.html

"each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once"

Senator and Reps only, it appears.

[whalerider55]

4. A Plan

House Dems Yield all their minutes to John Conyers, who lays out the case.

Senate dems yield all their minutes to RObert Byrd, the only dem with a spine since Wellstone was murdered.

and let the fun begin.

whalerider55

[ConstitutionGuy]

7. Won't work

Members probably can't yield their minutes to other members. Read the law - Title 3, United States Code. Each member can speak only once and for no more than 5 minutes.

[Starone]

5. After receiving a response today from Bayh of IN

....makes me wonder if the Dem Reps and Senators, when they meet in session Thursday, won't push for a debate of whether election fraud exists, but instead will be questioning what should be done next to address the already known issues. Here's a copy of the letter Bayh is sending to constituents who request his involvement; I really liked his statement "Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind, should this issue come before the Senate." Maybe I'm reading more into it than I should, but I'm thrilled he's not responding as if this is a "tin foil hat" cause.

January 4, 2005
Thank you for contacting me with information on possible
voting irregularities. I appreciate you bringing this matter to my
attention.
It may interest you to know that on November 5, 2004, several
members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the U.S.
General Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an investigation into
alleged voting irregularities and voter disenfranchisement. The members
asked the GAO to "immediately undertake an investigation of the
efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004
election, how election officials responded to difficulties they
encountered and what we can do in the future to improve our election
systems and administration." The letter specifically requests
investigations be undertaken in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and
California, but does not limit the investigation to those states. The GAO
has stated that it intends to release a report on electronic voting during
the 2004 Election in the near future.
There have been no hearings on this matter scheduled before
Congress at this time. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns
in mind, should this issue come before the Senate.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I value your input and hope
you will continue to keep me informed of the issues that are important to
you. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov, can also provide additional
details about legislation and state projects, and you can also sign-up to
receive my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin, by clicking on the
link at the top of my homepage.
Best wishes,

Evan Bayh
United States Senator

[newyawker99]

8. Hi Starone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mulethree]

6. What case to make?

They protest the electors from a state, they do a 2 hour debate on whether to accept the electors. Then they come back to joint session to see if they agree to allow or disallow. Then they go on to more states and possibly more protests and debates.

I can see Ohio provoking some action, because the validity of the electors giving their votes while the state's recount/contest process had just started. How can they be valid votes when the states process is ongoing - inconclusive? Allows the whole subject of "the 'irregularities' were not inconsequential or random" and "the state officials worked against fairness" and "what are they hiding?"

I'd like to see some state debated before Ohio just to get over the initial "vote was a mess" and "no vote is ever perfect" and "its a state responsibility" arguments in advance.

So at a minimum, it raises the issue as a national disgrace. Hopefully it becomes more well known than the 2000 protests.

But irregardless of whether Ohio electors get set aside, how do you get from a big stinking disgrace, to investigations, voting rights act enforcement, 14th amendment enforcement, voter verified paper ballots, and some kind of checks on Blackwell type stuff?

Does it all need to come out to the public and then move from the public back through our representatives into congressional action?

Or can the contest debates result in some more immediate action within congress?