EAC Chairman DeForest Soaries publicly states that he did not initiate discussions of postponing November election, specifies: "There are no circumstances that could justify the postponement or cancellation of a presidential election in the United States."

ALSO VISIT

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.

Some suggested that the move would directly subordinate the value and the nature of any cancelled or postponed election to the will and the timetable of terrorists. Homeland Security claimed it was only exploring the idea, at the request of the Election Assistance Commission, and that the measure would only be used in order to prevent an incident from artificially altering the voting patterns of the nation as a whole.

It was unclear from the very beginning whether there could be any legal or constitutional merit to the maneuver, which appeared to suggest that the administration was more afraid that adverse circumstances might hinder re-election hopes than concerned for the integrity of the electoral process. The example of Spain was used, where a terrorist incident occurred only 72 hours before a national election and the ruling party was subsequently ousted.

There, however, the polls showed higher turnout than the last elections and the government got itself into trouble by lying about the investigation, presumably in an effort to win votes. Members of Congress have expressed severe concern that the administration may be overstepping its constitutional authority in seeking to postpone an election and point to times of national crisis (even the height of the Civil War, in 1864) when elections were held.

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 that the plans for postponing the November elections may be laced with partisan strategy.

The petition clearly states the position that such a move would actually threaten the stability of the democratic process and would tempt the hand of terrorists, who might see the cancelling of an election as the highest proof of success in provoking fear. It reads as follows: any such plans "including requesting an informal review by the Justice Department, would present the greatest threat to date to our democratic process - and would invite terrorists to disrupt the selection of our highest leader."

According to Newsweek, DeForest Soaries, the Bush appointee who made the controversial request has himself admitted that "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Currently, there is no concrete plan to cancel or postpone the November elections, and officials are not in agreement about either the legitimacy of such an act or what would constitute a true and legally-defined "disruption" worthy of the most drastic move against Constitutionally-prescribed elections in our nation's history.

National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleeza Rice has stated publicly that "No one’s thinking about postponing the election," and said the elections should be held, even in the midst of crisis. But DHS officials say they are taking the idea seriously, and are exploring a number of possible plans and scenarios which, with Congressional approval through "emergency legislation", could lead to the cancellation or postponement of the elections. [For more: MSNBC]