The Unmentionable Issue is now being Mentioned. The AP:
- WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.
Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.
Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.
"I am still awaiting their response," he said. "Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion." Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City — and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later.....
"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.
"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."
Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.
"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said. "The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?"
Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.
Indeed: just ponder the possible scenarios..and implications.....with increasingly sharper polarization of this country and a potentially close election. If a plan is not drawn up, and broad bipartisan consensus reached on what to do, the controversy over Florida could look like a minor dispute.
There are already moonbats suggesting that Bush plans to stage a terrorist attack in November in order to give him an excuse to cancel elections. I say don't do it--there are no terror attacks that will be so widespread they can swing the election.
From what I recall, most people went to the polls in on 9/11, bound and determined not to let the terrorist interfere with the election.
It seems that it would be more in the interest of the Democrats to have a cancellation/rescheduling plan from a poll number perspective. Indulging the moonbats for a moment, Bush would have more to gain from not postponing elections if there were a major terrorist attack in the days preceding elections.
The reasoning (not original, heard various places before) is this. While many indeed would overcome their fears and go to the polls anyway, a significant percentage would still be frightened away. Since mid to major cities, in general, tend towards voting dem, with outlying suburban and rural areas, in general, tending towards rep, a large scale attack is more likely to happen in a mid to major city (concentration of population making it a more effective place to stage one). People in cities would therefore be likely to have a larger percentage of otherwise likely voters stay home. Even if the attack was something more widespread, say at malls around the country, transport and comfortability with the poll environment would still tend towards more people in cities staying home. In cities, while many can walk/drive to the polls, many more rely on public transit. These transit systems become a point of fear for some, and may even have disrupted service. A higher percentage of people in outlying and rural areas move about autonomously (by vehicle) and could avoid concentrated places such as malls. Further, the polling place itself in a city is still likely to be amongst crowded areas (even if just apartments if everyone is locked indoors) and large buldings, whereas rural polling places are more freqeuntly isolated free standing structures. Even the living situations lead towards the same disparity as city dwellers don't have to travel far from home (often not even going outside more than a few feet if at all) to seek comfort from neighbors. In rural areas, one often has to travel a bit further to seek the same comfort and a polling place would be a fair choice to meet up with neighbors.
As a small example, take the swing state of Pennsylvania. While the state as a whole is a close dem/rep contest for federal or governor elections, the two largest cities (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh) are largely dem to the point where the democratic mayoral primary race is essential the mayoral election. Any major terror attack in the last days of October or first couple of November would be more likely than not to swing the state rep.
This is not a prediction, and certainly not a wish, merely a look at what would be more likely to happen should another attack occur. One more reason to keep up the pressure overseas and the vigilance at home, as the disputed election in 2000 caused a rift in this country and another disputed election with the emotional terror aspect attached would certainly cause rift far worse.
My guess is if we were to have a major terrorist attack close to election day, we would have far more angry Americans demanding an administration devoted to destroying the terror cells responsible than we would Americans too frightened to leave their homes to visit the polling booth.
On the other hand, the news media would doubtless percecute the current administration for failing to stop terrorism 100% of the time. I'm unsure which side would gain more political advantage from the situation. I truly doubt elections would be delayed unless there was evidence voters would be targeted on election day.
What Dean said. A terrorist attack big enough to disrupt the Federal elections would be large enough that there wouldn't need to be a "policy" - it'd have to be a big enough attack that the likeliest response would be martial law. Such an attack is also effectively impossible, given what we know about the abilities of those who wish to do such a thing. (If they could do that, odds are very strong they already would have.)
The moonbat-fodder factor alone is a pretty strong argument against it, especially combined with the immense unlikelihood of it ever being necessary. The mere existence of such a set of guidelines will be taken as "proof" that "They" intend to "impose dictatorship". (Just like Rangel's DOA draft bill is "proof" that "They" are going to impose a draft. No, really. I've had people seriously propose that to me.)
Note 2, regarding the "intimidating minority voters" sub-issue; people seem to seriously argue that the presence of a police car on a road "intimidated" voters in Florida (these claims never seem to stand up to scrutiny, but people propose it anyway, and politically the claims' existence matters more than any shred of truth to them, sadly)...
So, what possible security measures could we have that would have a chance of being effective, that would be less "intimidating" than the mere presence of a police cruiser on the side of the road? I can't really think of any, personally.
On the other hand, I'm not aware of any reason to believe that terrorists are likely to wish to attack US elections per-se. That politicos think that's the Worst Thing Ever doesn't suggest that the terrorists are likely to think the polls are a primary target. (Certainly not if they understand the American mind at all; such an attack would be far more likely to anger than to frighten.)