My response to my congressman (King-R-NY 3rd) about canceling the election

[Renew Deal]

Here is the original thread on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1985567

Here is what he wrote (formatting has been blown out):


No one ever wants to cancel elections. Certainly no one wanted to cancel elections on Primary Day, 9/11/01, but they were postponed two weeks to preserve the democratic process which emerged stronger than ever.
Similarly, with the purpose of preserving elections, the federal government wants to have a policy in place which will specify what procedures will be operative if an attack should occur on or before Election Day in one or more cities or states which would prevent citizens in those locales from voting on Election Day.
Are you suggesting that elections should have gone ahead on 9/11/01? If not, then I'm sure you must agree that the government is doing the right thing.

Congressman King,
Thanks for getting back to me. I have really been worried about this issue since I first heard about it and even more so after learning more about it.
I don’t think 9/11 was a state election day. I think it was NYC only. That day was handled according to NYC law. I don’t know what that law is, but I am sure that they didn’t do anything “illegal.” Elections probably shouldn’t have gone on that day, but that depends on the laws of NYC which I am not familiar with. Regardless, I do not agree that the government is doing the right thing.
The constitution and the laws of this country were written with the consideration that the country could be at war or even under attack on Election Day. In 1864 we held an election while the country had no real southern border.

Here is what President Lincoln said about the elections of 1864:

Lincoln on the 1864 Presidential Election

Response to a Serenade

November 10, 1864

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.

On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralized (sic), by a political war among themselves?

But the election was a necessity.

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.

But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/writer/1864.htm

What President Lincoln wrote in 1864 applies to us today. Holding elections will demonstrate the great power and love for democracy of the American republic and her people. But canceling elections indefinitely or postponing them would be far worse. Lincoln nails it when he writes “if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.” Substitute “rebellion” with “terror” and you have modernized his letter. But it’s not just Lincoln who is saying this. Last week Congressman Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) said "Were we to postpone the elections, it would represent a victory for the terrorists.”
Of course, in the wisdom of the new American government, the forefathers have already planned for what would happen if “an attack should occur on or before election day in one or more cities or states which would prevent citizens in those locales from voting on Election Day.” Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 2 of the US Code says:
• Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
This law was designed for selecting a president while the country is under attack amongst others. Let’s say there is an attack on Election Day. The unaffected areas continue to vote and the others follow the law of the state as well as common sense to decide if voting should continue. The states have to certify their presidential election before it becomes valid. As the law I pointed out to you says, the state legislators will make the final decision of allocation of electors. This eliminates the argument that an attack on Election Day means the elections should be postponed until later.
The threat of an attack should never preclude us from being able to vote. If we voted during the Civil War and WW2, we can vote today. Some historians say that we were within 30 seconds of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union at different times in the 50’s and 60’s and we still voted then. If the threat of nuclear war didn’t deter us, why should the threat of terrorism? Terrorism is usually isolated in geographical scope, especially compared to the Civil War. Most of the country would be able to continue voting uninterrupted. And if a state had a problem with the integrity of their results, they can refer to Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 2 for the presidential election and state/local law for everything else.
What happens if there is an attack every Election Day? How many times can the elections be postponed? Are you just going to keep postponing forever? Doesn’t that mean that we are giving in to terrorists?
There are other ways to ensure that Election Day goes off without a hitch, while increasing turnout and participation and controlling the risk of a terrorist attack. One way is to make Election Day a holiday. This would probably be the most popular solution. The advantages of this solution are:
• Increased turnout
• Increased participation
• Good for the economy (Sales, sales, sales)
• Population is dispersed
• Allocation of funds to protect polling places
• Celebrate America

Increased turnout and participation is what we all want besides safety. This would give people the whole day to vote. They can participate in a campaign or help at the polling places (inspectors, watchers, etc.). Everyone would be a part of the process if they chose to be.
Sales!!! I bet that there would be great retail sales that day. It gives the stores another chance to sell their products.
People wouldn’t be as concentrated in the big cities which leaves fewer big targets.
Special funds can be allocated to protect the elections. That puts more cops on the streets. It would be a higher state of readiness.
Any chance to celebrate America is worth taking. It would be a big American holiday. People can vote, party, watch the results, and party (or cry) some more.

The disadvantages of this solution are:
• Potential problem with closing the stock market
• Government offices closed?

I don’t know how easy it is to close the stock market and government offices. The holiday can model the day after Thanksgiving Day if necessary. That means that the stock market is open as well as some government services, but not much else.

That’s the optimist’s solution to this problem. I hope that you consider proposing it for this year. I think that it would be a sure winner. The people would love it which is good for you and it solves some of the terror threat problems that you are worried about. The Republicans have had no problem rushing the Gay Marriage Amendment and another Flag Burning amendment, so this one should be easy.
Another solution is feasible but ugly. Protect the polling places with cops and the National Guard. Though this would be effective in protecting the country, it would give the sense of chaos and probably reduce turnout.
So that’s that. I hope you propose my solution on the House floor. I will let you take full credit . We already have laws to deal with unfinished elections and this addition to our laws would not only help solve the problem, it would be very popular.

Thanks for listening,
Bleachers7 :kick:

[Renew Deal]

1. kick

:kick:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. You must be a thorn in his side

I love it! :D

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Good for you. Election holiday is on my list of reforms I'd like to see.

[RC]

4. I thought this was a dead issue.

Even the repub Congresscritters have this figured out.

[Renew Deal]

5. My reply is a few days late

but there are still good suggestions in there.