How House Democrats Can Force A New Election in FL-13

If it had not been for faulty machine error, producing an absurdly high undervote, then Christine Jennings would have won this election on November 7th:
The group of nearly 18,000 voters that registered no choice in Sarasota's disputed congressional election solidly backed Democratic candidates in all five of Florida's statewide races, an Orlando Sentinel analysis of ballot data shows.

Among these voters, even the weakest Democrat -- agriculture-commissioner candidate Eric Copeland -- outpaced a much-better-known Republican incumbent by 551 votes.

The trend, which continues up the ticket to the race for governor and U.S. Senate, suggests that if votes were truly cast and lost -- as Democrat Christine Jennings maintains -- they were votes that likely cost her the congressional election.

Republican Vern Buchanan's 369-vote victory was certified by state officials Monday. His camp says that, although people may have skipped the race -- intentionally or not -- there is no evidence that votes went missing.

But the results of the Sentinel analysis, two experts said, warrant additional investigation.

"Wow," University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato said. "That's very suggestive -- I'd even say strongly suggestive -- that if there had been votes recorded, she [Jennings] would have won that House seat."

David Dill, an electronic-voting expert at Stanford University, put it this way: "It seems to establish with certainty that more Democrats are represented in those undervoted ballots."

The Sentinel reviewed records of 17,846 touch-screen ballots that included no vote in the tightly contested 13th District congressional race to determine whom voters selected in other major races.
Now, even a small, cursory examination of the voting machines used in Sarasota County shows regular and serious problems with the vote count. If Vern Buchanan is seated in the House without a new election, than the FL-13, Katherine Harris's old district, will have a representative seated against the will of the voters.

There is, however, a way that Democrats can solve this problem without the need for further lawsuits or recounts. Considering how close the election was, how flawed the voting was because of the machine error, and that the voting problems caused the result of the election to flip sides, the only just solution is for a new election in FL-13. After January 4th, House Democrats will have that power:
Election watchers around the country think that the race could end up before a House committee -- the House Administration Committee, which oversees Federal elections. If so, the full House, which in the end is responsible for seating new members, could potentially vote on which of the two candidates to seat, thus deciding the race's outcome itself -- or could call for a new recount, or even declare the seat vacant and mandate a new election. Right now, of course, the House is still GOP-controlled, but by the time of this vote it could be in the hands of Dems -- meaning Jennings could conceivably pull off a win after all.
Jonathan is right to point out that simply seating Jennings without a new election would probably be a bad move politically. However, Democrats do have two reasonable options. First, they could refuse to seat either Jennings or Buchanan without a new election. Second, they could seat Jennings for a few minutes, and then have her immediately resign, resulting in a special election for FL-13 in the spring of 2007. Either way, House Democrats would be fulfilling the necessary and just goal of a new election in FL-13.

The best move would probably be to take the first option until either Bush or the new Florida governor refuses the budge. Once that point is reached, it is time for option number two. I have no idea what sort of chance Jennings would have in a new election, but holding that new election is, quite simply, the only just option. There is a danger that this will become an unfortunate sideshow during the first couple months of the new Democratic Congress, but it is the sort of fight that I, and I imagine the entire netroots, and willing to give Democrats full backing to engage.

Please, continue to support the Christine Jennings recount fund. If you are a local, you can also participate in a rally for a revote in Florida 13 this Sunday. We can't let faulty voting machines defy the will of the electorate in Katherine Harris's district.



Display:


Democrats Can Force A New Election in FL-13 (none / 0)

They need to do force a new election, then pass and fund legislation requiring paper ballots or at least "receipts" so that if there are machine malfunctions there is a paper trail for recount situations.

In my county we use optical scan ballots.  I feel very comfortable with them.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:30:25 PM EST

Op-Scan - cheap, verifiable, fast (3.00 / 1)

Optical scan is the optimal system.

No choke point

Very inexpensive for each vote

VERIFIABLE.


by dataguy on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No New Election in FL-13 (none / 0)

I just don't think monkeying around with a certified election is a good way to burn your political capital.  Without irrefutable proof of fraud, there is simply no way to spin it in any other light than sore losers not accepting defeat.  I know there are a million other arguments, but to make any one of them, you are going to cede the moral high ground on this issue back to the Republicans.  Given the circumstances, in this election, there is no way to establish a winner that both sides will accept.  I think in a case like that, it might be better to be the "loser" because you can spin your opponent as illegitimate for two years and grab the seat right back in 08.  If there were a second election and Jennings won, then it would be the GOP running against an "illegitimate" incumbent in 08.

Since this one seat isn't going to change the balance of the House, I would rather see the Dems accept it as a tainted defeat and use it as another tool to pass meaningful election reform rather than trying to overturn an election that already happened.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:41:23 PM EST

Re: No New Election in FL-13 (3.00 / 1)

Did you read the report of the random test at DailyKos? The machines are seriously fucked up. If this is accepted, then anything goes.


by antiHyde on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No New Election in FL-13 (3.00 / 1)

I have to respectfully disagree with NJIndependent.  It is beginning to look like there will be evidence of serious problems with the vote in this district.  While they may not necessarily be due to fraud, it is a problem that needs to be addressed.  If there is solid evidence that the results of this election would have been different if all the votes were counted correctly, then the Dems would be right to ask for a new election.  This situation would make an excellent example for the need for election reform that includes a verifiable paper trail.  They can use this election as a case study and example to push reforms through congress with significant public support.  I agree with Chris in that the way they procede with this is important and that it should include a new election.  Hopefully, the court system in Florida will mandate a new election and the House will not have to get involved.


by phishwu on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:56:06 PM EST

Political Hardball? (none / 0)

Three thoughts:
  1.  Conceptually a new election is right, but it's a big distraction from the "First Hundred Hours" Agenda, which I think is key.  Also, would Jennings win?
  2.  If the shoes were on the other feet, the GOP House leadership wouldn't hesitate for a minute to just seat their "guy."  Since politics is a blood sport, and incumbents do have an advantage, I think (maybe, maybe) we play hardball and seat Jennings.  The GOP will try to make hay of this, but I'm not sure it will stick--especially if she turns around and resigns (with a great speech about voting rights), forcing a new election!!
  3.  Regardless of the choice (new election, seating Jennings, then having her resign), we MUST use this as an opportunity to add VOTING INTEGRITY to the "Hundred Hours Agenda."

by borlov on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:37:53 PM EST

Re: Political Hardball? (none / 0)

True, politics is a blood sport, but public perception goes a long way to building long-term support.  Dems need to show that they are different than the corrupt Republican congress that just got ousted.  Moves like seating Jennings will weaken their position with the public.  Dems need to show that they are different and that they will work for positive change for the common good, not their own self interest.


by phishwu on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Political Hardball? (none / 0)

Agreed that politics involves managing perceptions, which create realities.  My concern is that just seating Buchanan is wrong--in terms of voter intent, and, politics.  While working for the common good, people on the Left historically have shied from using power, and we as Democrats and progressives need to be willing to play hardball, when appropriate.  And I think this case, based on the evidence available to date, is one that warrrants tough action to ensure that the will of the voters is met.


by borlov on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.