Posted on 12/29/2006 10:37:13 AM PST by MurryMom
Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) today announced that he intends to take steps to put the U.S. House of Representatives on record as recognizing the justification of the electoral challenge filed by Congressional candidate Christine Jennings regarding the disputed election in Florida's 13th Congressional District, and making clear that any House proceedings on January 4, 2007, will not prejudice legal proceedings or legislative inquiry regarding the election's validity.
"It is a matter of fundamental fairness, of good government, and of accountability that we get to the bottom of this election," said Rep. Rush Holt. "It is imperative that every election reflect the will of voters accurately. In the case of Florida-13, there is no way to know whether result presented by the Florida Secretary of State is valid - in fact, there is significant evidence that it is not. 18,000 missing votes in a race certified on the basis of a 369 vote margin is an overwhelming indication that something went wrong."
According to evidence provided in the Florida case, to date, 18,000 ballots cast on electronic voting machines did not record the voter's selection for the House of Representatives, more than enough to change the outcome of the election, which was awarded to Vernon Buchanan by a margin of 369 votes. Had all votes been counted, the outcome would have been different, according to Dr. Michael Herron, an independent expert hired by ES&S, the manufacturer of the electronic voting machines used in Florida-13.
"Christine Jennings has duly filed a legitimate contest to the certification of the election results of Florida-13. Ms. Jennings raises serious issues, and I think, compelling evidence. According to Ms. Jennings, the number of votes in question is 50 times greater that the number of votes representing the margin of victory. According to independent experts and the voting machine manufacturer, the results would have been different had all votes been counted."
On January 4, 2007, Rep. Holt will make a formal inquiry on the House floor immediately after the swearing-in of the new Speaker. The inquiry will ensure that nothing the House does will prejudice those proceedings or the legal challenge underway in Florida.
"Under federal law, there is a procedure in place for reviewing contested elections," said Holt. "The House should do nothing to compromise or prejudice the case Ms. Jennings has before the Florida courts. I expect the evidence will show that the certification did not reflect the will of the voters and a re-vote is necessary."
The House Administration Committee is reviewing Jennings's challenge under the Federal Contested Elections Act. The Committee's inquiry as to whether the certified result was valid, and whether the matter should be referred to the full House of Representatives, will be informed by the legal proceedings in Florida.
"I intend to work with House leadership to ensure that every vote is counted in Florida-13, and that citizens get the representation that they have chosen," said Rep. Holt. "I also intend to pass my legislation requiring that all voting systems use or produce a voter-verified paper ballot so that electronic tallies can be independently verified."
Why is it that I get the impression that VoteTrustUSA and Rush Holt are only telling us part of the story?
BTW, who do you think won Florida in 2000?
I use this question as a Moonbat Detector...
MurryMom is our resident moonbat. Even she can't stand to live in the Liberal Democrat paradise of Pittsburgh. She lives in...get this...an exurb.
Hey the votes were counted, your gal came up short. By 369 votes.
How many does it take for the loser to admit defeat?
A good solution to this would be to have all ballots require a "NO" vote be cast if a person wishes to not vote in a particular race. This would record some vote for each race in order to continue with the ballot.
I think it is fair and accurate to say that many people pass over certain races because they simply don't want to cast a vote for any of the available candidates.
This simple and obvious solution would eliminate any claims that votes were cast and not counted. Why don't politicians want such a simple solution like this? They fear the "NO" votes would actually win!
From Wikipedia regarding Rush Holt and NJ-12th Congressional District: "Rush Holt was elected in 1998 after a closely contested race. His re-election in 2000 was also very close, as the district was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. In redistricting following the United States Census, 2000, Democratic areas were moved into the district from adjacent districts and Holt has been winning by much more comfortable margins.
In the 2006 mid-term elections, Holt defeated Republican Joseph Sinagra of Helmetta by an almost 2-1 margin, earning 115,413 votes to Sinagra's 60,443.[1]"
Seems to me that Rush Holt is just typical of that corrupt NJ Dem delegation and he's stepping up to stick his nose into a matter in which he should have no interest. Certifying elections is a state responsibility -- in this case a State of Florida responsibility. Mr. Holt would appear to have benefitted in the past when the Dem dominated NJ state legislature redistricted a much more comfortable Dem majority in his central NJ district. Like most Dems from NJ, it appears Mr. Holt prefers a rigged contest.
Unfortunately, I'm sure Rep. Holt has the support and votes of most (close to all) of the professors at Princeton, my old Alma Mater. Paul Krugman and Cornell West: what low-grade thugs these two are. Gives me a great reason to ignore annual giving requests.
If you're referring to Bush vs. Gore in 2000, every vote that was recognizable as a vote was counted and re-counted. If that's what you meant by your comment, then you are just repeating Dem. boilerplate b.s. You cannot count double votes or non votes which is what the sick in the head Gore wanted done. Vote canvassers are not mind readers, nor should they be.
The votes have been counted Buchanan won.
Why don't Democrats ever concede the close ones like Burns and Allen and that Congressman from Connecticut did? I guess Republicans have more class. I wish they held out like the sleazy Dems do.
By the way, even the media recounts of the Florida counties Gore wanted recounted showed that counting dimpled or pregnant chads still gave Bush the win. There was no scenario under which Gore won EXCEPT with assuming double votes for president were meant for him and there is NO WAY one can discern the intent of the voter. That is also the reason the dimpled chad scenario cannot be counted. So sorry, despite your Dem moonbat claim that "votes weren't counted," everything that was a vote was counted.
I frequently abstain on certain races. If I'm not familiar with the issue, have no opinion on the issue, if I don't know the candidates (happens quite often with minor races) I don't vote. On a more major race like congress I might abstain if I don't like my party's candidate, yet I don't want to vote for the other party.
The fact that a voter votes in one race and not another just means they didn't like their own party's candidate and couldn't bring themselves to vote the other party. Thats all that means. This challenge sounds baseless to me.
I will say this: I don't like electronic machines unless there is a paper backup. Some evidently have a paper backup and some don't. In a case like this, where the charge is that a vote wasn't registered, without a paper backup you have nothing.
I favor paper ballots, period. The Democrats tried to steal an election by claiming that paper ballots weren't reliable, so now they have an electronic ballot they still think isn't reliable. And they are trying to find a formula that allows them to count abstentions as votes in their favor.
In 2000 they tried to win by counting double-votes and non-votes as Dem votes, and they sued to throw out military votes. Now, again, they want to count non-votes as Dem votes. Its hard to respect people like that.
The key deception is the way Holt words it, that 18,000 votes "would change the outcome of the election." They have no way of knowing which way those votes would go. An accurate representation would be to say they "could change the outcome of the election." The corrupt NJ Dem. machine has no business in this election, and has even less business misrepresenting what might come of any potential recount.
Shame on you for ignoring annual giving requests from Donald Rumsfeld's alma mater!
Looks like this is the intended result of the Democrat push for electronic voting: some "expert" of the machine vendor gets to decide that the Democrat is the winner ???
Where the hell's my rifle?
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.