|
Dear XXXXXXXXX:
I write because of your interest in the fundamental question of
protecting the central tenet of democracy - the right of the people
to choose their elected officials in free elections - from the abuses
that have marked the last several presidential elections.
I believe that improving the electoral system is as important a task
as we face in the country, and I have been and will be doing
everything I can as a Member of Congress to bring about the
changes that we have learned are necessary. At the outset, I must
note that we face one significant obstacle here: the Republicans
who control the Presidency and Congress have become,
unfortunately, far less interested than many of us in making these
corrections. This is partly because they resist the notion that there
were defects in the process that resulted in the election of President
Bush, and partly because they do not favor expanding the
electorate, especially to members of groups who have historically
not been actively involved in voting in proportion to their numbers
in this society. We saw this in the previous four years, when
efforts led by Democrats - especially African Americans - to
adopt national legislation protecting the integrity of the ballot were
significantly watered down by the Republicans with their control
of Congress. We did make some improvements, including a
requirement that there be provisional voting for example, but what
we were able to achieve fell far short of what should have been
achieved, and we made no progress at all in the very important
question of how to monitor the accuracy of electronic voting.
I know that many believed that the best way to dramatize this was
to challenge the election of President Bush, specifically by seeking
to reject the selection of electors in the state of Ohio. While I did
publicly express my concerns following the election about the
situation in Ohio, I think it was strategically unwise to try to
prevent the approval of the Ohio electoral votes when the House of
Representatives convened to certify the electoral votes in January,
and I did not support that effort. All parties to this effort
acknowledged at the outset that it would not succeed in nullifying
the Presidential Election. I was part of a series of discussions in
2000 about procedures that could be used to reject the electors in
Florida - and there was of course far more justification for
rejecting the Florida electors than even in the case of Ohio this
year. But the rules set down in the Constitution made it clear that
no matter what we did, the Republicans would ultimately win.
That is, the decisions would have been made by the Republican
majorities in the House and the Senate and thus we were talking
about opportunities to debate, but not about any real chance to
block the election.
This was even clearer in 2004. So the question then became
whether or not making the official challenge to the President's
election was a better way to press our arguments in the insistence
on electoral improvements than simply noting the problems that
had occurred and trying to make changes for the future. I am
strongly convinced that tying these to a challenge to the President's
election made it less rather than more likely for us to succeed. We
are not going to get where we need to go here in the next couple of
years at least without some Republican support. It will be difficult
for us to get Republicans to break from their strong party discipline
in this regard, but I believe there are Republicans who are prepared
to do that, especially with the kind of grassroots mobilization
demanding fairer elections that we hope we will see, and which I
am working to help stimulate.
If what we demanded of these Republicans was not simply that
they commit themselves to a future set of reforms and
improvements in the electoral process, but that they repudiate the
election of President Bush, our chances of winning them over
would have been slight. Thus, we would have been making it
harder to get the Republican support we need if we are going to
succeed - I am talking again remember not about the majority of
the Republican Party but of some men and women of integrity who
will break with their party position and join us - than if we were to
have insisted that they repudiate the President's election.
Indeed, I think it was a mistake to have the debate dominated by
challenges to the issue of whether or not the President got a
majority of the votes in Ohio rather than to simply document the
abuses. At this point, that of course is a somewhat historical
debate, and we should now all insist on doing everything we can to
make changes for the future.
Success in accomplishing change obviously requires analyzing the
existing defects. I think they are of two sorts, and only one has
gotten attention. The first is of course corruption and conscious
abuse. There is the problem of the potential fixing of voting
machines, and I agree with those who seek some sort of paper trail.
I have been a cosponsor of legislation to do that. Beyond that,
there are clearly efforts to intimidate voters, mislead them, provide
them with inadequate resources for voting etc. We should
continue to debate those very vigorously and push for legislation
where appropriate to make these practices illegal.
But there is a second facet we have to acknowledge as well. Some
of the problems in Ohio, for example, happened in areas where the
Democrats shared control of the electoral process with the
Republicans. The problem as I see it is that we have for too long
treated the electoral machinery as a source of patronage, and not
recognized the importance of first-rate public servants in the
agencies that ran elections. In my own memory I recall cases
where executives making appointments to important positions
thought very seriously about who to put in most jobs, but then
consciously appointed people whose only qualification was
political loyalty to jobs running the election machinery. We see
this with regard to those who man the polls on Election Day. Most
of them are very well intentioned, but they tend to be people far
past the normal working age, who are paid very little, and put in
bad working conditions. Indeed, of all the public officials with
whom people come into contact, I think most people will agree that
the election officials are those least well positioned to do a difficult
job.
In the past, we did not see the job as difficult because we thought
they simply sat there and helped people who wanted to vote and
knew how to do it. One of things we have done over the past years
- with some success I am pleased to say - has been to expand the
electorate. We have reached out to groups in the electorate who
for a variety of reasons - past discrimination, local education
levels, economic difficulties etc. - have not regularly participated
in the process, and they include people who move frequently and
have other characteristics that can give them trouble when it comes
to voting. The problem is that we have significantly increased the
extent to which people are now voting for the first time, especially
people for whom voting is not the routine thing that it is for most
of us, while not improving the system into which we have urged
them to enter. We have continued to leave the electoral machinery
in too many cases - obviously not all - in the hands of people who
are not equipped to do the difficult job that is now involved in
helping with this expanded electorate.
I therefore believe we should be doing the following. First, as a
Democrat, I am going to do everything I can to insist that the new
Chair of the Democratic National Committee, whoever he or she
is, make improvements in the electoral machinery our number one
priority. This means both fighting against efforts to corrupt or
intimidate the process, but also urging Democrats who have some
control over the electoral machinery to do a better job of
anticipating and servicing the need. It should be noted, by the
way, that in some cases, Democrats who were entrenched in
certain areas, particularly some big cities, were not at all interested
in expanding the electorate lest this endanger their hold on power.
We must now understand that it is a Democratic imperative to
increase the electorate and that means among other things making
sure the Democrats in power anywhere are fully willing and able to
do that.
Beyond that, we in Congress should continue to press for serious
legislation that imposes at the national level safeguards against
abuse and corruption. At the outset this will be hard because of the
Republicans' reluctance to do it, but I believe that the grassroots
effort that we are talking about will make it easier. This of course
brings me back to my initial point - given the need for us to put
enough pressure on the system so that at least some Republicans
join us, I believe that continuing to frame this as a question of the
legitimacy of the President Bush's election will be emotionally
satisfying but politically frustrating. That is why I will continue to
do everything I can - as you can see from the attachments - to
generate this public support while not joining in efforts to say that
the President's election should somehow be repudiated.
BARNEY FRANK
BF/in
ENCLOSURES
The Honorable David M. Walker
Comptroller General
US General Accounting Office
441 G Street, N.W., Room 7100
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Walker:
I would like to request that the Government Accountability Office
investigate the complaints that have tainted this past election. We
need to determine for one if these complaints are founded, and if
so why they occurred. We also need an in-depth investigation into
the efficacy of the various voting machines being used throughout
the country. No vote is more important than another and every
vote matters, and if we have machine error or human deception
that takes even one vote away, that hurts America.
In Columbus, Ohio, President Bush was given 4,000 extra votes
according to an Associated Press story and in Guilford County,
North Carolina, John Kerry received 22,000 extra votes. In
another county in North Carolina 4,500 votes disappeared. It does
not matter whether the votes went to Bush or Kerry, if they just
disappeared, or made a gambling ballot initiative pass. What
matters is that a person voted and that the vote was counted.
There have been many accusations of disenfranchised voters as
were outlined in the letter my colleagues, Representatives Conyers,
Scott, Nadler, Watt, Wexler, and Holt have sent to you. They have
a good grasp on the questions we must address. We need to
investigate the voting machines, the polling places, the voting
practices, and how we count those votes. Again, the reason I write
is that we need accountability and we need answers.
I look forward to your response.
BARNEY FRANK
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Washington, DC 20515
December 13, 2004
The Honorable Bob Taft
Governor
State of Ohio
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
The Honorable Larry Householder
Speaker of the House
Ohio House of Representatives
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 432 15
The Honorable Doug White
President
Ohio Senate
Statehouse
Room #201 Second Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Dear Governor Taft, Speaker Householder & President White:
We write with an urgent request that you either delay or treat as
provisional the scheduled December 13 meeting of the State of
Ohio's 2004 Presidential electors and the submission of the
certificates of ascertainment until resolution of pending recounts
and challenges regarding the Ohio presidential vote. We are sure
you would agree that no election is final, or should be deemed
final, until all votes are counted and disputes are settled.
Notwithstanding federal statutory requirements that electors meet
in their respective states on December 7, 2004, it is imperative and
necessary under the Constitution of the United States that the State
of Ohio delay or treat as provisional its meeting. First, federal law
also provides that state legislatures may settle election
controversies and contests six days prior to the meeting of electors,
such that all disputes would be resolved by December 7, 2004. In
this situation, it does not appear that the Ohio state legislature has
made a decision to avail itself of this provision.
Secretary Blackwell declared his results on December 6, so late a
date that he engineered a conflict with state recount laws. Ohio
law sets two deadlines pertaining to recounts. First, it provides
that applications for statewide recounts must be submitted within
five days of the secretary of state's declaration of results. Second,
such recounts must begin within ten days of the request.
Moreover, it is worth noting that your state law automatically
allows candidates who were not declared winners to seek recounts.
Secretary Blackwell gave county boards of election until
December 1 to certify their returns, and then waited to declare his
own results on December 6. As a consequence, recounts may be
sought at least until December 11 and must begin by December 16.
It is impossible, therefore, for the December 6 results to be the
official certification of the State of Ohio. The law providing a right
to a recount would be an empty right in this scenario.
As you know, at least two presidential candidates in your State
have applied for statewide recounts. Seeing the conflicting
deadlines contained within federal and state law, these candidates
sought to have the recounts begin even before the votes were
declared so the deadlines could be reconciled. The federal court
hearing the case denied the request for an early recount and also
rebuffed a motion by the Delaware County Board of Elections to
block a recount entirely. Also, we understand that challenges will
be filed today on behalf of Ohio voters to set aside the results of
the election in Ohio based on, among other things, massive voter
irregularities.
It is important to note that Article II of the Constitution of the
United States provides that,
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof
may direct, a number of electors," clearly giving the power to the
Ohio legislature to finalize Ohio's election results. It appears,
unfortunately, that Secretary Blackwell may unlawfully be
attempting to have his own results certified. This is because Ohio
law does not authorize the Secretary of State to determine the
electors for the State of Ohio.
Had Secretary Blackwell not postponed his results so long, it is
likely that any recounts would have been completed earlier and we
would not be writing to you today. Unfortunately, the Secretary
set in motion a series of events that should not penalize the voters
of Ohio. It is for these reasons we ask that the State of Ohio hold
only a provisional meeting of electors on December 13 and delay
submission of the ascertainment of electors. A conclusive meeting
of electors and ascertainment could occur after the recounts are
completed. Such a scenario still would permit the U.S. Congress to
meet in joint session and count the electoral votes on January 6,
2005, as provided by law.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this request,
please feel free to contact Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of the U.S.
House Judiciary Committee staff at 2142 Raybum House Office
Building, Washington, DC 205 15 (tel: 202-225-6504; fax: 202-
225- 4423).
---
Just got that one by email!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
