SwiftVets.com

[SBD]

International Labor Communications Association

Conyers Asks Senators to Object to Certification of Election

Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) has sent a letter to each of the 100 members of the United States Senate asking them to join with members of the House in objecting to the certification of the election results on January 6.

Letter from Congressman Conyers to US Senators

Calling for Congressional Debate on 2004 Elections

December 30, 2004

Dear Senator Boxer (sent to all US Senators),

As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law. I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election.

3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received."1. The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof."2 When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until the [pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of."3 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.4

Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.

Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors.5 In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of".

Please contact me at 225-5126 to appraise me of your thoughts on this important matter. If your staff has questions, that may be forwarded to Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of my Judiciary Committee staff at 225-6504. Thank you.

Sincerely,


John Conyers, Jr.


I think we all should contact him and give him our thoughts on this matter as well.

SBD

[shawa]

Conyers is doing Jesse Jackson's bidding. See the following interview
with Newsweek.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6770193/site/newsweek/WEB EXCLUSIVE

‘We Will Not Faint’
Jesse Jackson on why he thinks John Kerry really won the election
By Susannah Meadows
Newsweek

Updated: 2:13 p.m. ET Dec. 30, 2004Dec. 30 - Ohio officials concluded their recount of the presidential vote last Tuesday—reaffirming President George W. Bush’s victory. But the state’s election woes aren’t over yet. As bloggers continue to spin conspiracy theories about a victory stolen from Democratic candidate John Kerry, the Rev. Jesse Jackson plans to lead a Monday rally in Columbus to protest alleged voting irregularities. He warmed up with NEWSWEEK’s Susannah Meadows.

NEWSWEEK:What’s the matter with Ohio?
Rev. Jesse Jackson: In Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Youngstown, Cleveland, where I was, you had blacks standing in line for six hours in the rain. That’s a form of voter suppression.

Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell says that machines were allotted based on turnout in past years, and that he didn’t realize they’d need more machines until it was too late.
He had to know it because registration was up. Blackwell may have had to deliver for Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney and he got a lighter rap than [former Florida Secretary of State Katherine] Harris got. But Ohio may have been more stacked than Florida was.

So you think Blackwell stole the election for Bush?
It was under his domain to have enough machines; the machine calibration, tabulation issue. You could rig the machines. We have reason to believe it was rigged.

What is your evidence?
Based on distrusting the system, lack of paper trails, the anomaly of the exit polls. In Ukraine, there’s an exit poll gap, they say, “Let’s have another election.”

Have you been in touch with John Kerry about the issue? Does he share your concerns?
His lawyers are now involved in a minimal way. We are appealing to him to get involved. We think it should be certified provisionally, until there can be a forensic investigation of these machines, and until there’s a random recount. In only two of the counties did they do any hand recounting.

What can be done now?
Thursday is when Congress is scheduled to certify the vote. Kerry should take the floor and ask for a debate on the subject. Kerry pulled out too early. The scrutiny pulled out with him.

If the election were held again with these alleged problems solved, would Kerry win?
Of course I think that. If we deal with the anomalies, a fair random count, the urban-suppressed vote, Kerry would get at least 60,000 more votes. At least! I believe that. I don’t know that.

Is it possible that election will be overturned?
I don’t know. All we want is a fair count and a transparent election. We can live with the result. We’re fighting the odds but we will not faint in the face of the odds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standing in line for hours is voter suppression???
Many of us Bush voters waited in long lines also, and did it gladly.

When asked what is his evidence,--he distrusts the system.
Ooooh, that's real hard evidence, Jesse.

I hope Frist and the rest of the Senate leadership shut down
this stunt real quick.

[kate]

Ohh the DUers are all a twitter about this, contacting their reps and senators to get them to object to the certification. Apparently they think several reps will, but they need at least one senator to do so.
_________________
.
one of..... We The People

[GM Strong]

These are acts of desperation by desperate people. All they are succeeding in doing is making themselves look foolish and further marginalizing themselves. I don't think most of the public would stand for this. Only the Kook fringe thinks it is meaningful.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

[AMOS]

Have these mental midgets nothing else to do?

[RogerRabbit]

It gives you a insight of the mentality of a majority of Detroiters - they have sent this guy back to the House for 30 or so years - even after ihis mortuary business was very suspect

Looks like he will have to be his own customer to get rid of him
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

[scotty61]

[kate]

well, the Reps need at least one Senator to co-sign, looks like Boxer may be it
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

[shawa]

Exactly right, Kate!
The majority of the public will see this charade as a political
stunt. It will only serve to make the Dems look BAAAD!!

I say go for it, you idiots!!

[Bystander]

'Rev. Jesse Jackson: In Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Youngstown, Cleveland, where I was, you had blacks standing in line for six hours in the rain. That’s a form of voter suppression.'

Poor Jesse. He's hit a new low. Now he's blaming God. I don't know of any Bush supporter who can make it rain!
_________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
..................................Eleanor Roosevelt

[srmorton]

According to Fox News last night, new Senate minority leader Harry
Reid is discouraging any participation in this charade by the members
of the Senate. Officially, the Senate decided not to support this
challenge, but Barbara Boxer left open the possibility that she would
sign it.

Apparently, Harry Reid has learned something from what happened
to Tom Daschle. He knows that this type of ridiculous, partisian
activity only does further damage to the Democratic party, but Boxer
is a law unto herself and feels pretty confident that such actions
will not threaten her chances of relection. Harry Reid is in a much
more precarious position as a "red state Senator".

If Boxer does sign the challenge, it shows that Harry Reid may not
be quite as successful as Tom Daschle was in keeping the Senators
"in line".
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[GM Strong]

[Snipe]

[

On the "mental midget" side I read a 2004 quote by another Democratic star, Rep. Maxine Waters from California. At an abortion rights march she said, "I have to march, my mother could not have an abortion." Rep Waters has no idea how much she inadvertantly helped her cause.[/quote]


Can they do that retroactivly?
_________________
Tin Can Sailor

[scotty61]

Well today we will have a full fledged poitical stunt. Babs Boxer and Rep. Conyers will challange the electoral vote. While this will only postphone the inevitable by a few hours, it shows the attitude of the democrats plan to have in the future. They fully intend to harrass, obstruct and anything else they can think of to prevent Bush from getting anything done. They have dramatically lowered the level of parlimentary prctices in the congress. In doing so they have made a new standard for obstructionism and indoing so they must be thinking one of three things;

1. They are only thinking of today and do not give fig for the future.

2. They see no hope for taking control of one of the houses far into the future.

3. They think that their tactics can not be used against them should they win the congress and white house.

While they may be doing all three to some degree, I feel that they are thinking along the lines of #3. After all, these people are conviced that there are a seperate set of rules regarding behavior for themselves. They can make statements that will get a republican thrown out of office and they do not even get a slap on the wrist. Should the situation be reversed, they would strongly object to the republicans using the tatics they originated and the always "impartial" media will claim that they are denying the will of the people. Where are the media quetioning the partisan nature of this action? I thought they were the promoters and demanders of non-partisan politics. I guess that only applies to republicans disagreeing with democrats.

And where is John Kerry in all this? He is making a trip to Iraq, the one place in the world where he could not be criticized for not showing up for work in the Senate yet again. His staff are saying that he does not need to actually be in Washington to do his job. Once again showing that there is a seperate media set of standards for Kerry and Kofi and another for Bush. Frankly, I think that he is continuing the behavior he showed in Vietnam; doing what he wanted to do instead of what he was supposed to do.
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times.