FL-13 News

One of the lawsuits begins today. From a People for the American Way Press release:
A hearing in the nonpartisan lawsuit seeking a revote for disenfranchised voters in Sarasota County's congressional election, as well as in the case brought by congressional candidate Christine Jennings, is scheduled for this afternoon and Wednesday. The nonpartisan lawsuit represents the interests of Republican, Democratic, and independent voters.

The hearing will focus on the discovery process for the suit, especially whether iVotronic voting machine manufacturer ES&S must permit examination of its source code by plaintiffs' independent investigators.
Meanwhile, it looks as though the strategy we expected here on MyDD, seating Buchanan but ordering a House investigation of the election, is what will actually happen:
Any effort to prevent Buchanan from taking the seat would have to be approved by the full House.

If Pelosi decides to pursue that route, her new majority presumably would vote for it. But a source close to the Democratic leadership, who requested anonymity when discussing party strategy, said Pelosi most likely would let Buchanan take office while ordering an investigation by the House Administration Committee into whether a new election is warranted.

Pelosi is being pressed by Democratic activists to take a tougher stance and block Buchanan from being sworn in.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told Florida's Bay News 9 earlier this month: "You cannot seat someone if you don't have an election that's valid."

The liberal organization MoveOn.org delivered a petition to Capitol Hill on Friday urging Congress to order a new election.

Historically, denying certified winners their seats can be the political equivalent of a bare-knuckles brawl on Capitol Hill. In 1984, partisan tensions ran high in a dispute over what came to be known as Indiana's "Bloody 8th" district.

In that race, Republican Richard McIntyre had been declared the winner by 34 votes one day after the election and by 418 votes after a state-ordered recount. But the Democratic-controlled House refused to seat him. For a time, both McIntyre and the Democratic candidate Frank McCloskey drew congressional pay, but neither was officially seated. Six months later, after another recount, McCloskey was declared the victor by four votes. Republicans cried foul and stormed out of the chamber when McCloskey was seated. Then-Rep. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said at the time, "This wound will not heal without a terrible price and a scar that will not disappear for many years."
This is probably the safest route to take right now, which keeps the issue alive but does not gum up the first couple weeks of the Democratic House. In the end, however, I don't really care how much Republicans cry foul over the FL-13. The only just solution is a new election, and in a few months hopefully that is the outcome that can be achieved.



Display:


Does this set precedent? (none / 0)

When, if ever, was the last time that a new election was called in a Congressional race because of irregularities?  Does this set precedent for future elections?


by ManfromMiddletown on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:10:44 PM EST

Re: FL-13 News (none / 0)

Um...how can there be a new election if Buchanan is seated. The facts are out there, we know the 18,000 votes disappeared...nothing new needs to come out to force a new election. Pelosi needs to refuse to seat either of them and force a new election. A new election will not ocurr with Buchanan seated.


by need some wood on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:35:39 PM EST

I was about to ask the same (none / 0)

If Buchanan is seated, under what constitutional authority can Congress effectively end his term before January 2009?


by Adam B on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 02:49:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was about to ask the same (none / 0)

I detailed it here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/7/1841 24/966
by Chris Bowers on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 03:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was about to ask the same (none / 0)

Doesn't really address it except as an afterthought in the article -- The House plans to swear in Buchanan, along with other new members, on Jan. 4, according to House Administration Committee spokeswoman Salley Collins. The House could unseat him later, if it chose.

I'm guessing it's the Qualifications clause, but I don't know that it has ever been used retroactively.


by Adam B on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 03:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL-13 News (none / 0)

I agree that a new election will not occur if Buchanan is seated. Pelosi is making a mistake and that mistake is denying the voters in this district thier vote.
Republicans fight viciously for thier candidates; we should too.
They feed they Lion and he comes.
by bmelz on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 04:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL-13 News (none / 0)

This bothers me too. Once someone has taken office, they are perceived as the legitimate office holder and anyone else challenging them is perceived as having no legitimacy. This is true even if someone has been declared the winner and is acting as if they are the winner. This is the argument I always use for why it would have been futile for John Kerry to contest the results here in Ohio, as many are angry he did not, despite not knowing if there was real reason to believe the election was stolen and lacking any proof. By the time proof  was established it was too late. A similar dynamic occurred in Florida in 2000. By being declared winner before the recount and acting as if he were the winner by starting to announce appointments, Bush established himself as the legitimate occupier of the office, and even had Al Gore been able to prevail and take office as the actual winner of the Florida vote (as was later established) he would have been widely perceived as an interloper who took something away from the "real" president. Given this, it would be better to seat no one until an actual winner is established via a new election. Sheesh. And I used to think we had problems in Ohio!


by anastasia on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 05:05:08 PM EST

Re: FL-13 News (none / 0)

I agree that the perception of legitimacy closes the case, in most instances.

But I also don't think the House really has the tools it needs to settle this the way it might prefer.

While they can refuse to seat Buchanan by majority vote, they can only suggest a new election. What happens if the governor refuses to acknowledge the seat is vacant? Or just keeps sending certification of Buchanan's election back to the House?

Republicans can make this an oozing sore that lasts forever, if they want to.


by Kagro X on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 06:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL-13 News (none / 0)

They don't want to. It's all too clear that they decisively lost the seat -- had every vote counted. They want this to go away quietly. If they did make a fuss, they know exactly where the sympathy lies -- and it ain't with them.

Pelosi et al are playing right into their hands if they seat Buchanan. (I realize that they may not have a choice, given the Blue Doofuses Dogs.)


by lightyearsfromhome on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

clarification (none / 0)

had every vote counted = if every vote had been counted


by lightyearsfromhome on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 08:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: clarification (none / 0)

= "had every person who wanted to vote in the race actually been reminded to cast one"


by Adam B on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL-13 News (none / 0)

It would be a mistake to seat Buchanan.  Pelosi and the Dems need to declare the election was flawed and that the seat is vacant.  

This will shine lots of light on the main problem - voting without a paper trail.  The touch screen machines should all just be scrapped in favor or optical scan or paper ballots.


by Bear83 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:38:08 AM EST


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.