U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-07-11 04:07pm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-11 04:11pm

Hm, so al Qaeda might try and disrupt the presidential election, so to counteract this, we should ... disrupt the presidential election.

Utterly brilliant.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-07-11 04:15pm

sounds a bit like bush is grasping for straws in order to stay in office. . .a wee bit too much fearmongering for my tastes.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-11 04:17pm

Durandal wrote:Hm, so al Qaeda might try and disrupt the presidential election, so to counteract this, we should ... disrupt the presidential election.

Utterly brilliant.

I can see where they're coming from with this. Suppose something on the scale of September 11 happened on Election Day? It's not unreasonable to postpone the vote for a week while you're trying to pull your shit back together, especially if some areas are so disrupted the voters can't get to the polls.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-11 04:18pm

That's the daftest thing I've ever heard.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-11 04:21pm

RedImperator wrote:I can see where they're coming from with this. Suppose something on the scale of September 11 happened on Election Day? It's not unreasonable to postpone the vote for a week while you're trying to pull your shit back together, especially if some areas are so disrupted the voters can't get to the polls.

What's the likelihood of something like that happening?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-11 04:21pm

RedImperator wrote:
Durandal wrote:Hm, so al Qaeda might try and disrupt the presidential election, so to counteract this, we should ... disrupt the presidential election.

Utterly brilliant.
I can see where they're coming from with this. Suppose something on the scale of September 11 happened on Election Day? It's not unreasonable to postpone the vote for a week while you're trying to pull your shit back together, especially if some areas are so disrupted the voters can't get to the polls.

I seriously doubt that's the rationale here. It's one thing to delay the election so that everyone can get their votes in (in order to keep in the spirit of the process), but I imagine that this administration would want to postpone the election for far longer than a week and chalk it up to national security, saying something like, "If we switch administrations now, we won't be able to combat terrorism."

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-11 04:24pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
RedImperator wrote:I can see where they're coming from with this. Suppose something on the scale of September 11 happened on Election Day? It's not unreasonable to postpone the vote for a week while you're trying to pull your shit back together, especially if some areas are so disrupted the voters can't get to the polls.
What's the likelihood of something like that happening?

Slim to none. But if it did happen and the government had no plan to deal with it, and went forward with elections in the middle of a national emergency where people weren't even sure the attacks were over, the administration would get crucified, and rightly so. It's just contingency planning.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-11 04:29pm

Durandal wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
Durandal wrote:Hm, so al Qaeda might try and disrupt the presidential election, so to counteract this, we should ... disrupt the presidential election.

Utterly brilliant.
I can see where they're coming from with this. Suppose something on the scale of September 11 happened on Election Day? It's not unreasonable to postpone the vote for a week while you're trying to pull your shit back together, especially if some areas are so disrupted the voters can't get to the polls.
I seriously doubt that's the rationale here. It's one thing to delay the election so that everyone can get their votes in (in order to keep in the spirit of the process), but I imagine that this administration would want to postpone the election for far longer than a week and chalk it up to national security, saying something like, "If we switch administrations now, we won't be able to combat terrorism."

They'd never be able to get away with that and there's not a shred of evidence that's what they're actually planning. Besides, why would they? Americans support the president in the face of catastrophe and probably re-elect Bush by a landslide.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-11 04:30pm

RedImperator wrote:Slim to none. But if it did happen and the government had no plan to deal with it, and went forward with elections in the middle of a national emergency where people weren't even sure the attacks were over, the administration would get crucified, and rightly so. It's just contingency planning.

If the odds are slim to none, then why postpone the election. Make contingency plans for the slim-to-none possibility and then let the elections go on schedule. After all, Durandal was spot on. Delying the elections because there is a minute possibility that someone will try to delay the elections is silly and only serves as boogeyman style fearmongering.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-11 04:34pm

RedImperator wrote:They'd never be able to get away with that and there's not a shred of evidence that's what they're actually planning. Besides, why would they? Americans support the president in the face of catastrophe and probably re-elect Bush by a landslide.

Wait wait wait... there isn't a shred of evidence that the Bush administration uses major events like Election Day as an excuse to issue huge scary terror warnings that are based on nothing and which never even remotely come true as a way of drumming up support through fearmongering?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-11 04:46pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Slim to none. But if it did happen and the government had no plan to deal with it, and went forward with elections in the middle of a national emergency where people weren't even sure the attacks were over, the administration would get crucified, and rightly so. It's just contingency planning.
If the odds are slim to none, then why postpone the election. Make contingency plans for the slim-to-none possibility and then let the elections go on schedule. After all, Durandal was spot on. Delying the elections because there is a minute possibility that someone will try to delay the elections is silly and only serves as boogeyman style fearmongering.

What the hell are you talking about? All the article says is that they're trying to set themselves up with the legal authority to delay the election IN CASE OF AN ATTACK, not actually delay the election. As it stands, if something like 911 happened on election day, nobody would have any authority on the federal level to postpone the elections, creating a very real possibility that some states might close the polls and others might not, and cast doubt on the legitimacy on the whole thing.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-11 04:48pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
RedImperator wrote:They'd never be able to get away with that and there's not a shred of evidence that's what they're actually planning. Besides, why would they? Americans support the president in the face of catastrophe and probably re-elect Bush by a landslide.
Wait wait wait... there isn't a shred of evidence that the Bush administration uses major events like Election Day as an excuse to issue huge scary terror warnings that are based on nothing and which never even remotely come true as a way of drumming up support through fearmongering?

That was NOT the point Durandal made at all. He stated he believed the administration wouldn't merely postpone elections in the event of a major attack on election day, but actually suspend them in order to stay in power.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-11 04:52pm

I may have misread a few things. Feel free to disregard my posts.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-07-11 05:10pm

While I can partially understand it, the 'suspicious bastard node' has just kicked in hard. Mind you, I can't substantiate anything until I get a better look at who would have the authority to decide the newly scheduled time..

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-07-11 05:13pm

If we get attacked, we'd certainly invade three more countries within the next four years.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-07-11 05:37pm

To echo Frigidmagi, if President Bush was actually dumb enough to try and pull some shit like indefinite suspension of the elections, he'd likely be shot by his own Marine guards (as Frigid is so fond of pointing out, the Marines are sworn to the Constitution first and the President's orders second). I think its more likely that he'd be arrested by the USSS, but either way it would not stand. No one's going to put up with anyone trying to install himself as dictator of the United States.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-11 06:34pm

Can't delay the vote. It has to happen Nov 2nd. It's teh Law.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-11 06:51pm

MKSheppard wrote:Can't delay the vote. It has to happen Nov 2nd. It's teh Law.

Thanks, Shep. The CONSTITUTION states when the election is to take place, NOT Congress or anyone else. If a city is attacked -even blown up- the voting should proceed as planned. Anything else reeks of the kind of bullshit we see in banana republics, when some sort of incident is contrived just in time to stall or cancel the voting.

For all the tough talk about how people would rally around a president if we were attacked... I wouldn't bet the rent money on it. It could just as easily create a backlash against the Pres.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-11 06:58pm

I'd be worried if this had a chance of taking place.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-11 07:02pm

The only thing I'd consider this to be necessary is if a nuclear device
was detonated on US Soil. I'd rather delay the election than let it go
forward and risk the lives of people in the fallout plume.

90% of all radiation is gone within 24 hours of detonation, so simply
issue a proclaimation delaying the election for 24 hours from Nov 2 to
Nov 3, and tell everyone to get into their basements or pile heavy
furniture around them for 24 hours to protect from fallout in the affected
states.

It sure beats the alternative, which is to go ahead with the elections
and expose people to hard rads, or throw the vote out in the affected
states.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-11 07:04pm

MKSheppard wrote:The only thing I'd consider this to be necessary is if a nuclear device
was detonated on US Soil. I'd rather delay the election than let it go
forward and risk the lives of people in the fallout plume.

90% of all radiation is gone within 24 hours of detonation, so simply
issue a proclaimation delaying the election for 24 hours from Nov 2 to
Nov 3, and tell everyone to get into their basements or pile heavy
furniture around them for 24 hours to protect from fallout in the affected
states.

It sure beats the alternative, which is to go ahead with the elections
and expose people to hard rads, or throw the vote out in the affected
states.

Or just say "We're keeping the polls open another 48 hours".

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-11 07:07pm

Elfdart wrote:Or just say "We're keeping the polls open another 48 hours".

Fuck that shit, I'm moving the date forward, I'm not even going to risk
the lives of the people in the fallout plume.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-11 07:21pm

Elfdart wrote:Or just say "We're keeping the polls open another 48 hours".

Let's be realistic here. A nuclear device detonating on US soil would necessitate emergency response teams being in a lot of different places for a period of a lot longer than 2 days. The mass hysteria that such a detonation would likely create would almost certainly require all available manpower from the National Guard and police be deployed, and those operating the polls in areas where there were riots would probably be in danger.

In such a situation, it would be in everyone's best interest to stay in their homes until order is restored. But simply letting a sizable portion of the population's voice go unheard because they were too afraid to leave their homes to go to the polls is simply unacceptable.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-11 07:55pm

That was a joke.

But seriously, how long would the voting in the target area have to be delayed? There is a deadline where the electors meet and select the President. Short of actually changing the Constitution, changing the date of the elections is illegal. So Ridge and the others are (if this story is true) conspiring to break the law.