ALSO VISIT

Newsweek broke the story, which is now being covered by newpapers around the world, that the Department of Homeland Security is considering plans to postpone the November elections, should there be a terrorist strike. This has never occurred, and so the government would need to create a legal framework for implementing such a plan.

Not surprisingly, some see the plan as not only without precedent but radical and ill-advised. Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) is quoted as saying "That would be the ultimate surrender to terrorism for a democracy." Opponents of the plan say it would set a dangerous precedent, and that only by securing and reinforcing the electoral process, guaranteeing access to the vote, no matter the circumstances, could the nation show its democracy is stronger than the twisted logic of terrorism.

Supporters of the idea say it was done in New York City on 9/11 itself, when a mayoral primary was postponed for two weeks. The situation differs in a number of ways, however: 1) it was a primary election, not a final vote; 2) the city itself had been attacked and was in a state of chaos, even as voting was going on; 3) there was a legal process. The plan being explored would not be limited to areas where an actual attack physically disrupted the process; it would be designed to distance the date of the vote from a terrorist incident, to prevent a random occurrence from happening too close to the date of the election.

The background argument used by the administration to support its plan for postponing the election is that the Madrid bombings on 11 March "disrupted" the election there. The facts on the ground in Spain indicate that the election was entirely open, fair and without incident. The attacks happened 3 days before the election, and the following day, 12 million Spaniards (roughly 1/4 the population) rallied in the streets of major cities for peace, for national unity, and against terrorism.

People were not intimidated, and the process was not disrupted. What may have hit a kink was the ruling party's standing before the voters. But there again, it was not the terrorist act itself that caused this to happen. One should have expected the nation to rally around its government. But the ruling party made crucial errors in strategic judgement: they treated the attack as a political event, sought to control coverage and misled the nation about the evidence and the investigation, leading some to believe they would have turned their eye away from the actual bombers in order to gain politically.

Whatever the reasons, many more voters turned out than in the previous election, and the ruling party was swept out of office. Some observers have attributed the election outcome to heavily increased turnout among younger voters, who tended not to favor the right-of-center ruling PP. It may also be that even higher turnout among regional interests (12% higher in Catalunya) who felt excluded by the ruling party's centralism, could have swayed the election to the left-leaning PSOE.

It's important to understand the Spanish election of 14 March, because it belies the premise for delaying the November elections here. The process there was not in fact disrupted. Many critics of the current administration charge that what is feared is not electoral chaos but rather their own potential loss at the polls. There is a very legitimate distinction between an attack that actually impacts the voting and counting process and compromises the integrity of the ballotting, and one which simply happens around the time of the election.

The Spanish election in fact was an example of an election which was conducted peacefully only days after the nation's worst terrorist incident, in which voter turnout increased, a nation voiced its desire, and the government acquiesced to the will of the voter by turning over power to the winners. It should be studied as an example of how to conduct free and fair national elections in the midst of a national crisis.

Homeland Security reportedly sought counsel from Justice Department lawyers on crafting this contingency plan, after receiving a request from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, which aids in management of the nationwide process. The EAC is also currently studying issues surrounding the security of new ballotting processes, such as touchscreens, due to evidence suggesting they can be tampered with or may fail due to computer error.

The United States has long prided itself on "the rule of law", the process governing the government, and the fact that even during our Civil War, in a time of incomparable national crisis, there were elections. Concern for the integrity of the electoral process has been spreading across the country, for a number of different reasons, and some suggest the Congress and the administration should get to work on securing access to the vote for as many Americans as want it.

Part of the shock of the news that the federal government may be planning to postpone the November elections stems from the fact that it appears to contradict the principle of rule by laws and not by men. It seems to place the political fate of one candidate above the will of the electorate in order of priority and suggests that in times of crisis, the voter cannot be trusted to act in good conscience. Clearly, the intent of any effort to secure a national election against tampering or interference should be to ensure that the voice of the voter to be the highest priority for all concerned.

The nation is currently facing a ballot integrity crisis: as many as 20% of all votes may be cast by touchscreen machines that produce no paper trail and permit no secure voter verification by hard copy. These machines also are technically unable to permit a manual recount, meaning that any glitch or manipulation could go undetected and uncorrected. Some see this new announcement as evidence that the commitment to fully free elections is slipping in light of constant word of terror threat matrices, which are never clearly-enough defined to bridge the gap between fear and reason. [For more: Boston Herald]

REP. WOOLSEY SENDS 191 CONGRESSIONAL SIGNATURES TO RIDGE TO STOP POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION
20 July 2004

Last week, the story broke that the Department of Homeland Security had sought advice from Justice Department lawyers on how it could postpone the November elections in the event of a terrorist incident. The news sparked an uproar over Constitutional law, the limits of Executive authority, and the principle of securing elections as the single most fundamental institution of a democracy.

This week, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) circulated a petition among her colleagues in Congress, which called for an immediate halt to all planning for postponing the election. Within the first hour, it had 100 signatures, and was ultimately signed by 191 members of Congress, including Ms. Woolsey. Only 1 Republican member signed the petition, which again has raised concern among observers... [Full Story]