Posted on 12/29/2006 12:44:49 PM PST by Brilliant
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A disputed election result in a House of Representatives race in Florida will be one of the first items raised when the Democratic-controlled House convenes next week, injecting partisan politics into the start of the 110th Congress.
Rep. Rush Holt (news, bio, voting record), a New Jersey Democrat who has pushed for better safeguards on electronic voting machines, said on Friday that he will make a procedural point to establish that the swearing-in of Florida Republican Vern Buchanan does not prejudice ongoing challenges by his Democratic opponent, Christine Jennings.
"This is a district, Sarasota area in Florida, where there's no way of knowing whether the result presented by Florida's secretary of state is valid. In fact, I think there is significant evidence that it is not," Holt told reporters.
Buchanan was certified the winner of the November 7 election by a 369-vote margin. But oddly, about 18,000 ballots in Sarasota County had no votes recorded for the disputed House race, while other races on those same ballots were voted upon.
Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner, said the matter is settled.
"Florida authorities conducted a thorough audit of the voting machines used in the district and found no system breakdowns or abnormalities." He added, "The election is over. Vern Buchanan won."
Holt said he will make the "formal inquiry" immediately after Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California is sworn in as the first female Speaker of the House on Thursday.
Democrats wrested the House and Senate from Republican control in November's elections.
Jennings is pursuing legal challenges in Florida and has asked the House Administration Committee to investigate the balloting. Ultimately, in disputed elections, the House has the last word on who is a member of the legislative body.
Holt's procedural move on Thursday is less confrontational than an effort to block Buchanan's swearing-in at the start of the new Congress. Holt said he knew of no fellow Democrats who were planning such a maneuver.
"I expect the evidence will show that the certification did not reflect the will of the voters and that a revote is necessary," Holt said.
Close elections are not uncommon and fights over results sometimes poison the atmosphere between Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
A glaring example was the 1984 race between Indiana Democrat Frank McCloskey and Republican Richard McIntyre. McCloskey was thought to have won narrowly, but a recount gave McIntyre an edge and Indiana's Republican secretary of state certified him the winner. But Democrats in control of the House then ordered a recount by the U.S. General Accounting Office and McCloskey won by four votes.
Republicans were bitter about the result for years.
The disputed Florida seat had been held by Rep. Katherine Harris (news, bio, voting record), the former Florida secretary of state who certified George W. Bush as the winner of the 2000 presidential race in Florida over Al Gore.
Of course... The first things the Dems must do upon being sworn in is dole out a healthy portion of anti-democratic partisan acid.
Florida ping request
They fail to mention that such an undervote is not uncommon in that district. That is an important fact that places things in proper context. It seems that the voters of the 13th cannot stomach the candidates from either party.
The challenge is so weak on the facts, that the election will never be overturned by Congress. If its is, prepare for war in the Capitol.
It's been done before by the Dems with even less justification. They refuse to seat GOPer simply because the election was close, the handgrenade theory.
Why is this a "but," and why is it "odd?" Some percentage of voters in every election, in every district in the nation, don't vote for one or more candidates on the ballot, while they do vote for other candidates and ballot initiatives.
Answer: Media bias.
No matter what the perceived incongruity, it's always a reason for siding with the Dems.
What da hecky??? First Florida had paper ballots, which worked well for over 100 years ... then went to punch cards, which also worked well .. then to so-called "butterfly ballots", which didn't seem to work so well for Dems. They complained about that big time and now have electronic voting, which doesn't seem to satiate the Dems either, since they lost a few races here and there ..... what type of voting system is it that the Dems want most???
(never mind, I already know the answer to that)
Lessee, 'Pubbie won, Dem lost.
Well, of course, it was voter fraud, vote tampering, miscount, hanging/pregnant/dimpled chads, disenfranchised voters, illegal voters, dead voters . . . . (have I run out of Dem whines on this, yet?) . . . . . . unregistered voters, voters from Pittsburgh . . . . .
(I just threw that last one in for fun. Nothing against anyone from Pittsburgh! Happy New Year, y'all!!)
They're going to seat Buchanan, so the rest of this is just for show.
As far as I am aware, in every instance where the certified winner had his election overturned in Congress, no one was seated while there was an investigation underway.
How long before the "intent of the voter" issues start to raise their ugly heads again?
In a slight change of subject, this is why I would like to see a "None of the Above" box added for every elected position on the ballot. In any race that "None of the Above" gets the most votes, all of the candidates are disqualified (and cannot run again in that election cycle) and a new election must be scheduled with all new candidates for the unfilled positions.
Sounds to me like 18,000 people found their own way to vote for "None of the Above".
RAT scum in action. No election left unstolen.
Not just in that district, but all over the country. I frequently leave 'blanks' in the voting booth if there is a proposition which I don't understand or candidates for a particular office who are unacceptable. It isn't an 'undervote', its the will of the voter. Thats all.
Indeed -- as they protest from dawn to dusk about how objective they really are.
Destroying the people's faith in elections is a critical step on the path towards socialist totalitarianism
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.