A Bad Idea, Rejected (re: postponing elections)

In 1864, with the Civil War raging, millions of Americans voted in the presidential election and, as Carl Sandburg wrote, the balloting went on "in quiet and good order." So it was troubling to hear reports this week that the Bush administration and a federal elections body were talking about whether this year's election could be postponed in the event of a terrorist attack. Fortunately, elected officials from both parties quickly denounced the idea, and the administration said a postponement would not happen. At least raising the issue now allowed the nation to consider it in a moment of calm, and reject it.

DeForest Soaries Jr., the chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, set off a firestorm by writing to the Homeland Security Department to express concern that no agency is authorized to cancel or reschedule federal elections. The Homeland Security Department was reported to have asked the Justice Department to consider what steps would need to be taken.

However well-meaning they may have been, the inquiries were greeted with cynicism. Calling off elections, particularly when the ruling power is doing the calling off, is the stuff of tin-pot dictatorships. Even in this country, an attack can provide an opportunity for leaders to seek extralegal powers. New Yorkers still remember that after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani proposing staying on after his term ended.

The talk of postponing elections sent many Americans back to the Constitution, which delegates to Congress the timing of presidential elections. Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, made it clear that neither the president nor the Election Assistance Commission could override this provision. On CNN, Condoleezza Rice promised that "no one is thinking of postponing the elections." And Mr. Soaries then released his own statement that there are "no circumstances that could justify the postponement or cancellation of a presidential election."

It is good that the issue was raised now and resolved. As was clear in Florida in the 2000 election, the worst time to debate the rules of an election is in the midst of a highly disputed one because each party invariably supports the interpretation that enhances its chance of winning.

This week's controversy could also prompt Congress to focus on more practical questions about how to respond if terrorists try to interfere with the voting. The failure of the electrical grid, along the lines of last summer's widespread blackout, could disrupt voting in a large number of states. Violence at polling places, which is not uncommon in some countries, could make people afraid to vote.

Even though such possibilities may be unlikely, Congress should study the broad issue of election interference. To ensure that everyone has a chance to vote, it should consider giving courts the express authority to extend polling hours. It should also consider directing local election officials to have an ample supply of paper ballots as a backup. Whatever rules may be adopted, they should provide for more voting, not less.

Calling off elections, particularly when the ruling power is doing the calling off, is the stuff of tin-pot dictatorships.

I seem to recall 9/11 was Primary Day in NYC. The primary was postponed for a month. The NY Times supported that postponement -- without alluding to tin-pot dictatorships.

On CNN, Condoleezza Rice promised that "no one is thinking of postponing the elections." And Mr. Soaries then released his own statement that there are "no circumstances that could justify the postponement or cancellation of a presidential election."

The NY Times knows that no one is making plans to postpone any election a priori; however, the Times would be among the first to attack the Bush administration if there was no plan to deal with an attack on election day or a couple of days before, as was the case of the Madrid 3/11 bombing. So it saw an opportunity to score some political points up front.

Leave it to the Times to reference Florida. However, the dispute arose after the election had taken place, and continued well after the recounts -- both those that were state-mandated and those organized by a group of newspapers. Nevertheless, the Times is right that election rules should not be changed in the midst of an election or after the recounts as the Florida Supreme Court attempted to do until reversed by the US Supreme Court.

I sense that the Times is coming around to understanding that there could be problems that should be addressed with contingency planning.

Whatever rules may be adopted, they should provide for more voting, not less.

Could this mean that the Times is dropping its opposition to letting every military vote count? Nah, the one thing the Times is not is principled.

I'll tell you what, if terrorists bomb just one or two polling places on Election Day, turnout will drop by 5-10% nationwide. Whether or not this is cause to postpone an election is arguable, but it is certainly a good thing to discuss before the act.

More than that, imagine an attack on downtown Chicago two or three days before the election. The city, shaken by such a thing, has services stretched. People are unable to get to the polls, either to vote or to run them as election officials, if they even CARE to vote in these conditions.

The city goes all but without voting. The suburbs, more Republican leaning, do somewhat better, and downstate has little problem with a semblance of normal turnout. Downstate skews even more Republican, and, far from the walk the Ill Dems expected, Bush takes the state and even Obama doesn't make it. The Dems are locked out, in large part because even the idea of a contingency plan was something they sought to use as a political weapon instead of something they ought to consider.

The Rats had better stop to think that if there is a terrorist strike, it will likely be against a major city, which are their strongholds. If something did happen, it would bite them on the ass a lot worse than the other side....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.