The law of the land requires that, on a specified day following a presidential election, the Congress of the United States must certify the results of that election as having met the standards of legitimacy that should hold sway in the nation that describes itself as "the world's greatest democracy."
This is done before a joint session of the House and Senate when the electoral votes of the 50 states and the District of Columbia are opened, counted and then accepted as a fair and accurate representation of the will of the people in each of the jurisdictions involved.
The specified day for congressional certification of electoral votes is Thursday, Jan. 6, and it provides a rare opportunity to examine the troubled election systems of this country. If members of the House and Senate are honest with themselves, they will refuse to certify the electoral votes from the state of Ohio. The point of such a refusal is not to overturn the presidential election, or even to force a new vote in Ohio, where U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says that there remain "numerous unexplained irregularities in the ... presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law."
At the behest of Ohioans who objected to the handling of the election, Conyers and the minority staff of the Judiciary Committee have conducted hearings and investigations of instances of voter disenfranchisement, flawed or corrupted voting machinery, and inappropriate procedures for counting and recounting votes. They have produced a compelling report itemizing and analyzing the irregularities. On the basis of that report, Conyers plans to object to the certification of the Ohio results.
Conyers will be joined by several members of the House, and we hope that U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, who has previously joined Conyers in expressing concern about the Ohio irregularities, will be among them. More importantly, we hope that both Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will join members of the House in objecting to the certification of the Ohio results.
Under the rules, when the electoral votes of each state are announced, the president of the Senate calls for objections. To force a debate, a written objection must be signed by at least one senator and one member of the House. If that standard is met, the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body engages in a two-hour debate on the matter. Unless both the Senate and the House separately agree to the objection, the challenged electoral votes are counted.
Considering the partisan divide in both the House and Senate, which favors the Republican Party, it is unlikely that either chamber would agree to the objection. Thus, the raising of an objection is not going to block President Bush from gaining a second term. Rather, it would focus attention on legitimate concerns that have been raised regarding the Ohio vote and count, and on broader concerns about America's inconsistent and often flawed election processes - which vary so radically from state to state that genuine equal protection concerns arise.
Indeed, the tightly focused debate that would follow upon acceptance of an objection could be just what is needed to get this Congress, and this country, talking about the steps that must be taken to ensure that American elections provide a true representation of the people's will. Yet as of now, no senators have expressed their intention to sign the statement of objection to certifying the Ohio results. It is for this reason that we urge Feingold and Kohl to join Conyers and members of the House in forcing a debate.
© 2005 Capital Times
###
