Good Idea, Questionable Implementation
Here’s the blogosphere question of the day : In the event of another major terrorist attack, should we postpone the elections? (via Scott) :
Counterterrorism officials have asked the Justice Department to determine if the November presidential election could be postponed in the event a terror attack occurred at that time, Newsweek reported yesterday.The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week’s terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, the magazine said.
. . .
As a result, sources told the magazine that Homeland Security last week asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place.Also, DeForest Soaries, chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to postpone an election in the event of a national emergency.
Like quite a few ideas that have leaked out of the Bush Administration, this one is a good idea that will be implemented wrong (AIDS funding being another good example). One of the lessons we should have learned from 9-11 is that it’s a good idea to plan for the worst. After all, if you wanna have politicians figuring this shit out, who would you rather have? The touchy and partisan legislators during an election year or the “singing ‘God Bless, America’ on the Capitol steps while planning to give Bush a blank check” that we had on the evening of 9-11?
I’m not a huge fan of giving election postponing powers into the hands of the Department of Homeland Security though. Call me paranoid, but does it seem like a good idea to give election shuffling powers to the guy whose boss is running to keep his job? I don’t think so either. Perhaps something like this would be better decided by the judicial branch.
For argument’s sake, let’s say there’s another major attack on election day. Would I support postponing the elections for a month? Hell, yeah I would. After all, when I think back to the morning of the WTC/Pentagon attacks and imagine that were voting day, I can only imagine that any hypothetical voting would take a back seat to the crying in front of the television fad that seemed to be sweeping the nation. If the election weren’t delayed, it’s hard to imagine the instant parroting of the “We have to support our president” line wouldn’t have helped King George.
(For the record, I spent most of that day muttering to myself “God, I hope he doesn’t fuck this up.”)
Ultimately, I’m extremely skeptical of this whole plan, not because I’m against the idea of postponing elections during a national crisis, but because I don’t trust Bush and co. enough to be sure they won’t take advantage of that power.
Lemme end this with a hypothetical question that’s slightly off-topic, but worth mulling. Let’s put ourselves in the mindset of election day 2000. What would happen if someone decided to hide envelopes full of baby powder near all of the polling places in Florida’s black voting districts and then call the FBI? The authorities would surely act to shut down the area, which would prevent any voting from happening there for at least a few hours. What would be the best way to deal with that situation? Assign those voters alternate polling places (that the majority would probably never bother traveling to)? Postponing the elections in those selected counties and let them revote with the probable outcome of the election? Postponing all the elections and starting everyone over from scratch?
14 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
God, I heard this and the first thing that came to my mind was that King George, in his infinate wisdom would reluctantly postpone the election, for the nation’s better good until it was safe for us to come out of our bomb shelters. Or, as with our detained enemy combatants, ‘until the war on terrorism(or current conflict) is over’. This is another fear tactic that this adminstration is using, and I hope that Congress uses its authority, and not partisan tail wagging to finally bite this administration on the ass!
This is the democratic republic of the United States of America. We do not postpone our national election for anyone or anything, let alone phantom threats from the office of Homeland Insecurity, or God forbid, an attack from a terrorist group. I hope and pray that the American people and our government officials don’t fall for this. If they do, I’m moving to Canada or something! Or better yet, Saudi Arabia, where at least they don’t try and hide the fact that they are ruled by a wealthy royal family. God help us all! I urge everyone to write their congressperson and demand that this pipe dream of the Bushies doesn’t see the light of day.
Comment by mbf1978 — July 12, 2004 @ 3:11 pm
I mostly agree with Greg’s assessment of this situation, but I’m still reluctant to give anyone the power to postpone an election. The whole idea is just so…politically unstable third-world country. I realize it’s mostly an emotional reaction I’m having, not a logical one, but I think any postponement of our Presidential election would be an unprecedented disaster.
That said, being prepared for the worst is a good idea. But I’d hope the mechanism set up would be an automatic one, and not dependent on the (possibly-tainted) judgment of any one body or institution. CERTAINLY not the Department of Homeland Security, or the Justice Department, both of which are clearly Bush fiefdoms.
The judicial branch is a nice idea, but look at how spectacularly the Supreme Court failed us in the 2000 election. I’m still smarting from that one. Even if a person were to agree with the halting of the recounts, it’s still best to avoid major controversy when you’re dealing with a major national election.
So, what? Maybe an automatic procedure that can be passed by Congress–perhaps, if a national emergency happens on Election Day, all votes are voided and everything is automatically rescheduled for 30 days hence. But then, it’s BUSH who would declare a national emergency, and good luck getting Congress to agree on something in the next few months…
As our pal Abe Lincoln said, it’s really just best to have the election no matter what.
Comment by scott — July 12, 2004 @ 3:34 pm
I disagree, Greg. I don’t think we should put off elections, even during terrorist attacks…I don’t think it is constitutional anyway. But certain measures are legal and advisable. Here in Oregon, for instance, all ballots are sent by mail or dropped off, and must be turned in by election day, at which time they are counted. Why not do this in some other states, if we’re worried about last-minute terrorism?
There should be better rules for dealing with single county and single state “voting irregularities.” There should also be paper ballots, damnit, and a lot of other election reforms.
If America can’t hold an election during a terrorist attack, then we should just throw in the towel.
Comment by joe — July 12, 2004 @ 3:35 pm
Am I being naive in wondering how postponing the election would prevent the terrorists from postponing their terrorism to coincide with the new election date? In fact wouldn’t moving it up earlier actually be a more effective prophylaxis? I do not hear anyone in the administration suggesting that.
I think Joe’s suggestion works nicely since although each state is allowed it’s own voting mechanism, I believe, they must honor some form of proxy voting. If you decentralize the voting then the terrorists really have nowhere to attack, well, except those pesky conventions.
Comment by Joshua — July 12, 2004 @ 4:29 pm
Of course, there’s a difference between being three years into a war, and combing through debris of a skyscraper looking for survivors.
All I’m saying is that the way our elections work right now, it’s very possible that a terrorist attack could cause serious logistical problems that would force the conclusion that keeping the polls open would swing the outcome of our elections (and not in a bullshit “The terrorists want ______ to win way”).
If September 11th were an election day, at the very least we would have seen half of Manhattan (if not all of New York) lose their ability to vote. If you up the ante a bit to a situation in which the governor or president declares martial law (like a nuke going off in the center of a city, a smallpox outbreak which kills 100,000 people, etc.), there’s no way somebody can keep up the guise that elections are going on normally when we’d have the national guard in the streets trying to keep the peace.
To answer the second question first, no. If you wanna surprise terrorists by moving up the elections, you’re gonna have a hard time keeping it a secret from them while keeping everyone else who’s supposed to be voting in the loop.
As far as your first question, that really takes up back to the biggest conceit about this whole “war on terrorism” thing. There’s no way you can completely wipe out terrorism, but the whole point of postponing elections isn’t to try to outfox terrorists, but rather face up to the truth that it’s probably not a good idea to continue the selection of our leaders in the middle of a catastrophic attack.
I’m not being some sort of anti-democratic apologist here, just pragmatic enough to realize that there may be situations in which we need to call off elections. Rather than draw lines in the sand, maybe our efforts would be better spend figuring out the criteria for what sorts of incidents warrant postponement, who should be allowed to make that decision, etc.
Of course in a perfect world, Joe’s idea would be optimal, but let’s face it, the people making these decisions are assholes who would vote against any semi-progressive idea just to piss off liberals. Since electoral reform isn’t gonna happen (and logistically couldn’t happen in time for November), our best bet is to try to come up with a contingency plan based on the system we’ve already got.
Comment by greg — July 12, 2004 @ 5:22 pm
Of course you postpone the elections. You know why? You don’t disenfranchise an entire state. That’s been the rule of thumb since our earliest elections. If there were an attack that prevented (either physically or emotionally) a large portion of a state from voting, maintaining the election would effectively disenfranchise the state in which the attack occurred. We’ve spent the past year saying “Why didn’t we have a plan for a situtation like 9/11?” Well, here’s our chance to make up for our myopia and have a plan in place.
Comment by E-Rock — July 12, 2004 @ 5:47 pm
In the event of a terrorist attack, I think a boxing match between Bush and Kerry would take the country’s mind off of the attack. Or maybe we could just let Bush cheat again and steal himself a second term. Just a thought. Who’s to say to say he wouldn’t instigate a warning and close the polls on a hunch of an attack. I certainly don’t trust Tom Ridge and Bush has no credibility or intelligence to make the right decision on anything.
Comment by ShaunyP — July 12, 2004 @ 6:44 pm
If September 11th were an election day, at the very least we would have seen half of Manhattan (if not all of New York) lose their ability to vote.
Actually, 9/11/01 WAS an election day—the mayoral primary. The elections were suspended and rescheduled within a couple of weeks, and the November election was held as scheduled.
The attack probably did help Bloomberg, the GOP candidate, but both Democractic challengers (Green and Ferrar) were pretty week. Mark Green won the Democratic nomination and then folded like a cheap lawn chair, while Bloomberg had an enormous personal fortune and the Guiliani endorsement.
Meanwhile, Rudy made a naked grab for power, trying first to postpone the election—and stretch out his term-limited time in office—and then to get his own term limit overturned.
Comment by Don Myers — July 13, 2004 @ 6:55 am
Anytime the Bush administration suggests something, you should be immediately suspicious. Just because we haven’t quite figured out the details of the election postponing suggestion doesn’t mean it isn’t a strategy to keep power. Bush has never done anything for the common good. It is unlikely he will start now.
Comment by Becky — July 13, 2004 @ 7:00 am
Well put, Becky.
Also, there’s no postponement scenario I can imagine that wouldn’t heavily favor Bush, so no wonder Tom Ridge wants to look into it: If there’s just been an attack, not only is there ample “rally around the President” sentiment, but there’s extra campaign time. Bush would have more money than Kerry, plus he’d have the opportunity to, essentially, campaign on his strong leadership in time of crisis.
I know, strong leadership from Bush is a laughable concept, but he was pulling it off nicely in fall 2001, despite a fumbling and embarrassing start.
Look, the bottom line here is, shouldn’t the federal government be able to protect our national elections? Shouldn’t we be talking about how best to prevent any disruption, not about how to postpone the elections? What kind of image does that project?
Of course, this is the Administration who made preemptive war into American policy. We see how well that worked out…
Comment by Jonathan Scott Chinn — July 13, 2004 @ 8:14 am
I don’t understand why this isn’t crystal clear. We don’t have a protocol in place for what to do should, say, New York have another disastrous attack take place just before election day. We need a plan in place whether we ever invoke it or not. You can’t just disenfranchise a city or a state, but you can’t just let a state reschedule its elections, either, because the Constitution says that the election day has to be uniform across the nation. It does not, however, say when that election day should be. As a result, it’s best to have a plan, at the Federal level, for how to handle a pre-election day catastrophe. It doesn’t matter how sinister it feels, pragmatism should win out, here.
Comment by E-Rock — July 13, 2004 @ 10:10 am
I’d imagine it’s the same image that’s projected by having a cabinet secretary skip the State of the Union on the off chance that a disaster of some sort kills the President, VP, and both houses of Congress. It’s not a pretty picture, but to say that we shouldn’t have an emergency back-up plan for a situation like that is ridiculous. Just like the government should “be able to protect our national elections”, the secret service should be able to protect the President’s life. That said, shit happens. It’s best to plan for the worst and hope for the best.
I’m not saying we should turn off our bullshit detectors about the details of this plan. If 3.5 years of Bush have taught us anything it’s that he always has an ulterior motive. But like his plan to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, just because we know Bush is gonna screw it up doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea that deserves support. Rather than oppose this thing outright, we should get concerned about the details and make sure this is done right.
Comment by greg — July 13, 2004 @ 10:31 am
A couple of things…
Don:
Mark Green was taken down with extreme prejudice by New York City’s Democractic and Race-based political culture…although I’m sure there was a lot of pressure to fold like an armchair, just as the entire Democratic party did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Ross:
I much prefer a jumble of state plans, some bad and some goo, to on federal plan that will almost certainly be bad and will make future reform more difficult. Let the states pick their contigency plans, if at all possible. As to the consitutionality of such an approach, I’m honestly not clear on these things. My guess is that if it is illegal for the states to postpone an election it wouldn’t be legal for the feds to do it either. I’m probably wrong about that. But even if I am, the Federal rules should devolve the decision making power s much as possible, for a variety of reasons I am too laszy to go into here.
Comment by Joe — July 13, 2004 @ 12:05 pm
The analogy of the cabinet secretary being off-site for the State of the Union isn’t a clear one for me. This is a precaution to ensure that the government works in a worst-case scenario, bomb-dropped-on-the-Capitol situation. However, the State of the Union speech goes on.
I would argue that the national election is far more important than the State of the Union address. It’s also, I realize, far more complicated. I still argue that contingency plans and precautions should be investigated, debated, and implemented, but they should be undertaken with the goal of preserving the elections, not postponing them. Postponement of the elections should be a last resort.
I take issue with the way DeForest Soaries seemed to jump to the question of who had the power to postpone the elections, and how they would do it, as opposed to asking how the government can ensure their safety or plan for difficulties related to civil unrest. (Note that most states have contingency plans for such emergencies, disasters both natural and human-created. Perhaps the federal government should examine these plans, and strive for system of uniformity and application to a national election.)
I also distrust the parties involved in this process thus far: Soaries, Ridge, and Ashcroft, all Bush appointees and loyal Republican soldiers. I agree that the government needs to do something about this issue, but it should be done by a contingent of non-partisans (or as close as we can get, anyway), in collaboration with the state election boards.
It’s also something that the government should have thought about before the peak Presidential campaigning season, a time in which it’s nearly impossible to reach a logical and effective decision, due to the heavy political freight clinging to every detail and argument.
Comment by Jonathan Scott Chinn — July 15, 2004 @ 8:56 am