December 30, 2004
Dear Senator,
As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes
for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a
joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M. I and a number of
House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio
votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio
presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and
state law. I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this
important effort to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which
disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft
report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come
across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio
presidential election.
3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are
announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for
objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and
"signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of
Representatives before the same shall be received."1. The objection
must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground
thereof."2 When an objection has been properly made in writing and
endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House
chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No
votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until the
objection . . . finally disposed of."3 3 U.S.C. §17
limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during
which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than
five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to
the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.4
Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for
objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C.
§15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote
was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the
elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two
slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.
Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the
requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of
state electors.5 In the 2000 election several Members of the House of
Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the
State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and
therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no
determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis
under the 1887
Act. However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed
its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair
election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a
Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body
separately until "disposed of".
Please contact me at 225-5126 to appraise me of your thoughts on
this important matter. If your staff has questions, that may be
forwarded to Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of my Judiciary Committee
staff at 225-6504. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.