Topics
A directory to EDA website content by subject categories.
EDA Election '08 Results and Findings
When the EDA Election Data Analysis reports are ready, we will display on this page: 1. Summary comparison of national vote and (official) national exit polls (NEP) 2. Results summary of the independent citizen Election Verification Exit Polls (EVEP) 3. The summary table for the Survey USA telephone canvass data Other pages linked to this one will display selected voter incident reports and additional news and commentary.Holding Space for Results '08
(Initially we will display just the presidential figures; we will add in the complete data later)
NOTE: Although the Obama tide was too overwhelming for a McCain theft to have succeeded, EDA found in the election night unadjusted exit polls, evidence that computerized election fraud did occur, altering the outcome of contests in the House and Senate.
To the best of our ability, EDA will be issuing detailed reports showing where this occurred, working with the indirect evidence of exit polls. EDA and the public alike are denied access to the incontrovertible direct evidence -- the ballots themselves -- because the American electoral system has been outsourced to private vendors who count the votes with secret software, exploiting claims of proprietary trade secrets to deny public access to the actual ballot records. Unfortunately, the U.S. judicial system continues, in the main, to uphold these outrageous corporate claims against the sovereign right of the people, and Congress has so far failed to enact national election transparency legislation affirming the public's right to direct observation and verification of all election processes and records.
EDA will send out announcements when this page is updated.
To be notified of this and other developments, please subscribe to the EDA Announcements list [1].
IN THE MEANTIME, we present:
1. A Summary of Election Day 2008 from the Ruckus Society [2], who were standing by in case things went rapidly downhill, as they very well might have;
and
2. the Turdblossom Lectures by Mr. Karl Rove, on the art and science of Swinging Elections.
______________________
We at EDA appreciated very much a call checking in on our well-being this afternoon from Sharon Lungo of Ruckus Society, as the first polls were closing in the East.
Thanks to the Ruckus Society for having the energy left to put out this wrap-up on Election Day 2008:
______________________
So for those who have been watching, to close the loop :)
This is a report on Election Protection issues today in a nutshell:
Overall there were a ton of problems during the early voting process and all day today. The turn-out was beyond even the highest expectations. There was also some deeply collaborative response work - election protection was finally addressed as a combined legal, media and grassroots organizing strategy. This is exciting growth, and something to smile about, and though there were problems there were also amazing responses, so we are documenting both here.
Reports fell into a couple of key clusters, so we're just gonna give y'all highlights, simple as possible:
1. Long Lines!
What happened: High turn-out combined with faulty machines, too few machines, and poorly trained poll workers made for some extremely long lines today.
Response: Organizers from various campaigns and amazing citizen activists who heard the call from us and other groups today went out to the polls with chairs, music, poems, rhymes and song to help support voters to stay strong. Folks video'd the vote, tweeted, called, and stayed out as long as they needed to keep people at the polls, and make sure their vote was counted.
2. Names not on the Rolls!
What happened: Towards the beginning of the day in particular, the reports were largely that folks showed up and their names weren't there. This wasn't just for new voters, a lot of the reports were from folks who had voted in the same place for more than 2 elections.
Response: Calls poured into 866-OUR-VOTE (over 50,000 today alone) and legal teams responded where possible, and well-prepared voter education teams reminded people to fight for their right to vote. Unfortunately in a lot of places that meant voting on provisional ballots, which are the last to be counted.
3. Machine Glitchery!
What Happened:
A. President Vote Disappearances: When folks selected a presidential candidate, then selected a straight party line, it somehow disappeared the presidential selection. Initially this was only being reported by Democrats, but there were isolated Republican, Green and other parties seeing this happen.
B. Machines Broke! Overuse? Sabotage? Just not enough of them? Time will tell. This is one area Black Box Voting and others covered very well, and we need to be prepared to follow their lead in the future.
Response: Voters who noticed this were given paper ballot options. In situation A, officials claimed it was counting in the magic machine even though it wasn't showing up. The power of voter organizing was in effect here and kept folks ensured that their vote would be counted, hopefully by paper ballot!
4. Nefarious Texting and Flyers!
What Happened: College students and others were reported as receiving messages telling them to vote on Wednesday due to long lines and last minute "change of plans." We received reports of this happening in TX, FL, PA, MT, GA, VA, NM, CO and UT. In some messages it was specified that Democrats should vote on Wednesday.
Response: Jaws dropped, and then folks sent out educational emails, texts and got the message to their organizers in the field to let folks know that the vote for all people was in fact November 4, 2008. Amazing viral outreach on this one!
There was more, there was so much more, but right now we have to run out in the street and act a fool.
One exciting point that for us is huge, cuz y'all know we have given our hearts to this: Young people, who made up 18% of the voters today, were out in force. Black folks were out in force. Gay folks were out in force. The energy of the day was remarkable, and we want to shout out our gratitude to everyone who hit the streets, phones, blogs, and polls for the last months and today starting at 3am.
So - WE LOVE YOU!
And we'll be back to work tomorrow :)
--Adrienne Maree Brown and Jessamyn Delight Sabbag
It seemed like 2004 all over again.
Not only were touchscreen machines flipping votes from Obama to McCain in West Virgina [3].
It was also happening in Texas [4].
And Tennessee [5].
There's a reason for this. And a plan.
We've launched our Part Two [6] in the "Swinging Elections Lecture Series" -- and it's going all over the country to young voters.
This short, animated video features Karl Rove/Turdblossom, demonstrating how the voting machines can be hacked.
In case you missed it, in Part One [7], Rove introduced his Plan.
Now, we've got to alert people to pay attention to the vote counting, not just go home, pop a cool one and watch the returns.
We really need to collect the evidence.
There are a lot of options: Fill out incident reports, poll monitor, audit the vote count, participate in citizen exit polls.
It's all in our hip and comprehensive Voters Guide [8]
Please post this up on your site and forward the link to your friends.
All the material is substantiated in our Interactive Scrapbook [9].
Onward, with gratitude for all that you do,
-- Sheri Myers and the rest of the Wake Up team
www.wakeupandsaveyourcountry.com [10]
Wake Up and Save Your Country's mission is to provide information about election protection to the grassroots using new media and off-the-blanket creativity.
==============================
AND NOW FOR THE MOVIES . . .
Lecture Part 1
Lecture Part 2
For more from the talented team who produced the Lectures, see: http://wakeupandsaveyourcountry.com/ [11]
Don't miss the Kudzu Files [12]
CARRY ON
2008 and 2004 Presidential Exit Poll Discrepancies Compared
In 2008 the exit poll discrepancy was considerably smaller than in 2004, but it was still well outside the margin of error. I won’t calculate an exact number, since we don’t have all the data yet. But it’s safe to say that the difference is very unlikely to be explained by chance alone. The fact that pre-election polls [13] provided an estimate very similar to the exit polls in 2008 (The Obama lead was a little bit less in the pre-election polls, but it was surging upwards in the last couple of days, so probably the two were about equivalent) makes it even more likely that they were both accurate. So that leaves two possibilities: Exit poll bias (and pre-election poll bias as well) or impaired election integrity – that is, election fraud. . . . . Consequently, EDA undertook an effort yesterday to capture exit poll statistics from all major statewide races (President, Senator, and Governor) prior to “adjustment” of the statistics to match the official election results (Once the statistics are “adjusted” to match the official election results they are worthless for the purpose of assessing the exit poll discrepancy because the “adjustment” erases the discrepancy.) . . . . To read the complete article, click here [14]Introductory Summation:
"What all this means is that, as in 2004, the Democratic candidate performed much better in exit polls than in the official vote count, and the difference was especially large in critical swing states."
"Source: Time for Change's Journal, posted 11.05.08 06:22 PM
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/383 [15]
Comparison of the 2008 and 2004 Presidential Exit Poll Discrepancies and their Significance
By Dale Tavris, EDA Coordinator for Election Data Analysis
The presidential exit poll discrepancy of 2004 generated a great deal of controversy in some quarters because it raised the suspicion of a stolen presidential election. There were two types of extreme and opposite reactions to that controversy that I believe were unhealthy to our democracy.
At one extreme were those who chose to ignore it. These were people who, if they were aware of it at all, simply felt that it wasn’t important. Probably some of these people just couldn’t bring themselves to acknowledge even the possibility that a presidential election could be stolen in our country. Or maybe many of them believed that it is “bad sportsmanship” to question the results of an election once it is officially declared final.
At the other extreme were those who felt that the 2004 exit poll deficiency was proof of unlimited power by the Republican Party to steal elections. Consequently, they believed, any traditional efforts on behalf of Democratic or other liberal political candidates is meaningless in the absence of conversion to an election system that involves nothing but hand counted paper ballots.
The reality of the situation is somewhere in between those two extremes. Large exit poll discrepancies should be taken very seriously and investigated to ascertain their cause – especially with an eye to evaluating the possibility of wide scale election fraud. But at the same time it is highly counterproductive to assume an unlimited capability of Republicans for election fraud and to abandon traditional efforts to win elections.
In this post I will briefly describe the presidential exit poll discrepancy of 2004, compare it with what we know – so far – of the presidential exit poll discrepancy of 2008, and discuss the possible reasons for and importance of gaining a better understanding of the causes of these exit poll discrepancies.
A brief description of the 2004 presidential exit poll discrepancy
The 2004 Edison-Mitofsky national exits polls predicted very different results than the official Presidential election results. Whereas Bush won the official results by 2.5%, the exit polls predicted a Kerry victory nationally by 3% – a 5.5% difference. In addition, state exit polls predicted a Kerry victory in four states that Bush won – Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada – and a virtually even race in Florida, which Kerry lost officially by 5%. Of these states, the difference between the exit polls and the official results (which we refer to as “exit poll discrepancy” or “red shift”) were statistically significant (beyond the margin of error) only in Ohio and Florida. In Ohio, Kerry lost officially by 2.5%, while winning the exit poll by 4.2% a difference of 6.7%. Winning either Ohio or Florida would have meant an electoral victory for Kerry. On the other hand, none of the states that Kerry carried in 2004 were predicted in the exit polls for Bush. None of this is controversial or denied by any knowledgeable person.
What we know so far about the 2008 presidential exit poll discrepancy
The Election Defense Alliance [16] (EDA), for which I work as a volunteer [17], was established shortly after the 2004 Presidential election, partly (or solely) in response to what its founders perceived as a stolen Presidential election. Their perception of a stolen election was based largely (or solely) on the presidential exit poll discrepancy.
Consequently, EDA undertook an effort yesterday to capture exit poll statistics from all major statewide races (President, Senator, and Governor) prior to “adjustment” of the statistics to match the official election results (Once the statistics are “adjusted” to match the official election results they are worthless for the purpose of assessing the exit poll discrepancy because the “adjustment” erases the discrepancy.)
I was assigned three states to monitor and document – Pennsylvania, Georgia, and North Carolina. In addition, I periodically peeked at some other results of major interest. When very early in the evening I noted large Obama exit poll leads in Virginia and Ohio, a medium sized lead in Indiana and a smaller lead in North Carolina, I was elated, believing that all this signified an almost certain Obama victory – so I posted my opinion [18] on this. The exit poll information I had at the time was approximately the following:
Indiana: Obama by 5
Virginia: Obama by 9
Ohio: Obama by 8
North Carolina: Obama by 3
Pennsylvania: Obama by 15
Georgia: McCain by 2
National: Obama by 8.3
As it turned out later (which is not surprising), as in 2004, the Democratic Presidential candidate performed substantially better in exit polls than in the official vote count:
Official vote margin and discrepancy between exit poll and official vote count
Indiana: Obama by 1; exit poll discrepancy of 4
Virginia: Obama by 5; exit poll discrepancy of 4
Ohio: Obama by 4; exit poll discrepancy of 4
North Carolina: Obama by 0; exit poll discrepancy of 3
Pennsylvania: Obama by 11; exit poll discrepancy of 4
Georgia: McCain by 5; exit poll discrepancy of 3
National: Obama by 6.1; exit poll discrepancy of 2.2
Most of these exit poll discrepancies are beyond the margin of error or very close to the margin of error. That national exit poll discrepancy, though smaller than the others, is well beyond the margin of error because the sample size is much larger than for the state polls.
What all this means is that, as in 2004, the Democratic candidate performed much better in exit polls than in the official vote count, and the difference was especially large in critical swing states.
Possible reasons for discrepancies between exit polls and official vote counts
When exit polls differ substantially from official election results, there can be only three reasons (or combination thereof):
1. Random error, or chance
2. Biased polls
3. Impaired election integrity
The first step in the assessment of any statistical discrepancy is to assess the role of chance in producing the discrepancy. The likelihood of the discrepancy between the 2004 national exit polls and the 2004 official national results occurring by chance was estimated by Jonathan Simon and Ron Baiman [19] as being close to one in a million. The original response to the Edison-Miftofsky report [20] by US Count Votes (USCV) estimated that the likelihood of the discrepancy between the combined state exit polls and the official state results occurring by chance was about one in ten million. A proper combined likelihood of such a large discrepancy in both the national and state polls would multiply those two numbers, to give a result of one in ten trillion. Although the exact number can be and has been computed in different ways by different investigators, nobody, including Warren Mitofsky, disputed the fact that the likelihood of this discrepancy occurring by chance is so small that it should not even be considered.
In 2008 the exit poll discrepancy was considerably smaller than in 2004, but it was still well outside the margin of error. I won’t calculate an exact number, since we don’t have all the data yet. But it’s safe to say that the difference is very unlikely to be explained by chance alone. The fact that pre-election polls [21] provided an estimate very similar to the exit polls in 2008 (The Obama lead was a little bit less in the pre-election polls, but it was surging upwards in the last couple of days, so probably the two were about equivalent) makes it even more likely that they were both accurate.
So that leaves two possibilities: Exit poll bias (and pre-election poll bias as well) or impaired election integrity – that is, election fraud.
Then why did Obama win if election fraud was committed?
First of all, let me say that I don’t know for a fact that election fraud is the primary explanation for the exit poll discrepancies, either this year or in 2004. The issue was extensively investigated in 2004, and the results were not fully conclusive either way. Two possible reasons why the results were not fully conclusive were that: 1) Independent voter activist organizations were not provided access to all of the raw data, and 2) Nobody was provided access to the “proprietary” voting machines.
But let’s assume for a minute that election fraud in general, and programming of electronic voting machines to switch votes to the Republican candidate was the major reason for the exit poll discrepancies in both elections. Why then did Obama win, if the Republicans had the capability of committing that kind of election manipulation?
The answer to that is that their election fraud capabilities are not infinite. Both pre-election polls and exit polls showed Obama winning in 2008 by a much larger margin, especially in critical (and formerly red) swing states, than John Kerry in 2004. Kerry ended up with only one state (Ohio) that was very close and would have given him an electoral victory. Obama, on the other hand, would have won with any ONE of a number of formerly red states, all which showed him with both exit poll leads and pre-election poll leads or virtual ties (including Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado or Nevada.
So when I saw Obama with huge exit poll leads in VA and OH (of 9 and 8 points respectively) and good leads in NC and IN as well, it seemed highly unlikely to me that such large leads could be overcome with election fraud. Part of the reason for that belief was the Democratic performance in Congressional races in 2006. There were indeed substantial exit poll discrepancies in those elections – similar to what was seen in the 2004 Presidential election [22]. But if Republicans had unlimited capability for election fraud, then why did they allow Democrats to take over Congress in 2006? And furthermore, this issue has been given a lot of attention since 2004. Obama’s leads in both the pre-election and exit polls in critical swing states this year were so great that the theft of a third consecutive Presidential election could have been too much for American citizens to bear. Even if the exit poll discrepancy this year had been substantially greater than in 2004, Obama still would have won. The theft of this election would have been much more difficult to swallow than the theft of the 2004 election.
Why this issue is so important
Like all other activities, some sort of independent monitoring is needed to ensure that election processes are conducted fairly. To settle any of a variety of disputes in our country we have courts of law and investigators to gather evidence. Our sporting events require referees.
Elections are the backbone of our democracy. Without fair elections we have no democracy. The central process of our elections is the counting of our votes. Yet we now have electronic machines that count our votes out of view to American citizens – in other words, in secret. That is not acceptable for a democracy.
As noted above, a large discrepancy between exit polls and the official vote count means either exit poll bias or election fraud. This is not a matter of making political points, or rubbing in a sound Democratic victory in the faces of our opponents. Exit polling is considered a standard practice [23] for monitoring elections, and it is especially important when vote counts are conducted electronically, with no paper trail. There is a good reason for this: Large discrepancies between exit polls and official vote counts provide an important warning sign regarding the integrity of elections.
In the presence of large exit polls discrepancies, there is no way to know whether or not extensive fraud has been committed without an extensive investigation, including access to the voting machines. After three consecutive national elections manifesting large exit poll discrepancies well beyond the margin of error, and all in the same direction, it is way past time that we find a way as a nation to ensure that our elections are conducted fairly. Counting our votes in secret has no place in a democracy – especially when those doing the counting are heavy contributors [24] to one of the participants.
In the next few days, weeks, or months the EDA will be conducting a thorough analysis to see what we can find out about the 2008 presidential election exit poll discrepancy.
We won in 2006 and 2008 because we had large, virtually fraud-proof leads. Had those elections been close, as in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, we probably would not have won. Look what happened when we lost those elections. We just can’t allow that to keep on happening.
Recounts
The 2008 Minnesota recount for U.S. Senator is providing the American public an exemplary model for the resolution of close or inconclusive elections, by conducting an open, public hand recount of all the legally cast ballots.
We're opening up this new Recounts section under the Topics menu to cover recount-related stories around the country.
Coverage of the 2008 MN Senate recount features live and replay video of the MN recount provided by a citizen journalism website, http://www.uptake.org [25]. The video feed will resume coverage of the MN recount board when it reconvenes Monday, Jan. 5. An official determination of the Senate winner is expected to be announced.
Complementing the live Minnesota recount coverage is the article "Seating Franken and Burris: Memo to Congress" by frequent EDA contributor Michael Collins, who provides a thoroughly resourced explanation of the state laws and U.S. Constitution governing the conduct of election recounts, interim appointments, and the seating of members of the U.S. Senate.
Collins observes that "the laws and rules that Congress should follow are fairly straight-forward and the underlying principals are clear" -- yet Republican senators are threatening to block the seating of Al Franken as U.S. Senator for Minnesota, while Democratic senators are threatening to reject the appointment of Roland Burris as U.S. Senator for Illinois, as though they are under no obligation to abide by clearly articulated law and can override electoral process at will.
We will be adding articles about recounts occurring around the country to this Recount section of the website. Send in your leads and recommendations, or post articles directly to the editorial queue using the Add Content to Public Pages" [26] link under the Create Content menu in the lefthand column.
MN Recount Streams Live, Jan. 5
Al Franken was declared the winner over Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) in the Minnesota Senate race, but the Coleman campaign has announced it will be contesting the results in a post-election challenge. The state’s Canvassing Board declared that Franken defeated Coleman by 225 votes. However, the election will not be certified by the state until all the legal challenges to the race are completed. Coleman's lawyers have already indicated they will file an election contest -- meaning it could be weeks, if not months until there is a clear winner. (We discovered and put up this live video feed (below) at 4:00 pm Sat. as the Minnesota hand recount was in progress, with Franken 225 votes in the lead. The vote counting ended for the day at about 7:15 p.m. Eastern time with a press conference by the Franken campaign, the Coleman campaign, and a summation by MN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. With the conclusion of the live recount and press conference at around 7:30 p.m. Eastern on Saturday, the video feed has since switched to replay of an assortment of Election '08 videos, but will resume live streaming coverage of the MN recount on Monday, Jan. 5.) --Ed. The Uptake.org writes: See the spreadsheet [30] we use to keep track of the votes counted today. It changes as we update it. Video stream may take a while to load, but is worth the wait.
MONDAY Jan. 5, Breaking: Franken declared winner over Coleman 05 Jan 2009.
Live MN Recount Vote Totals for Saturday, January 3rd, 2009
Source: http://theuptake.org/ [27]
The official recount by the 5-member state recount board will resume and is expected to conclude Monday.
Click the spreadsheet and other links below to see count details provided by the website http://theuptake.org/ [28] 952 Absentee Ballots Counted Saturday Jan. 3.
Days' Count Ends with Franken 225 Votes in the Lead
Coleman campaign files request for an emergency order from the Minnesota Supreme Court [29].
Also, see our vote totals [31] in a popup if you wish. 
Seating Franken and Burris: Memo to Congress
"Republicans are threatening to delay the seating of Franken, even when he's certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate seat. Senate Democrats all signed a letter of implied threat to the governor of Illinois regarding his selection of Roland Burris as the U.S. Senator from Illinois.
. . . Is this the new national unity we've been hearing about?"
Al Franken (D-MN) left and Roland Burris (D-IL) right
Image cc [32] Image cc
[33]
Memo to the U.S. Senate:
Try Following the Rules
Michael Collins [34]
We've seen what happens when people don't follow the letter and intent of important laws, particularly those where there is a general consensus and an absence of moral ambiguity. Consider our history from the implosion of Enron through stock market collapse. This extreme damage was enabled by the deliberate defiance, evasion, and perversion of rules and laws, all in the service of personal gain for a very few. Citizens lost $6 trillion in that episode of lawlessness.
President Bush and his administration consistently broke the laws of the United States by illegally tapping [35] phones and emails, "selling" the Iraq invasion [36] based on outright lies, and, in the case of six cabinet officials, participating in the "choreography [37]" of torture sessions. All of them found the Constitution a nuisance and rendered it meaningless by their actions. The cost of these violations is incalculable.
A government gains legitimacy through the assent to shared rules and laws by the vast majority of citizens. No government can retain legitimacy, however, when the legislature fails to enforce and live by the very laws that they are sworn to protect.
Democrats and Republicans are now unified along party lines in their defiance of the laws. Is this the new national unity we've been hearing about?
Yet this is exactly what is happening [38] in the cases of the legally appointed Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris, and the soon to be certified winner [39] of the Minnesota senatorial election, Al Franken. Republicans are threatening to delay the seating of Franken, even when he's certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate seat. Senate Democrats all signed a letter of implied threat to the governor of Illinois regarding his selection of Roland Burris as the U.S. Senator from Illinois.
The final vote count for Franken shows him winning by a narrow margin. The same elections system that conducted the recount will recommend and likely receive certification of the election quickly by the authorized state authority.
Burris was appointed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) according to the laws of Illinois. There's no provision that says a governor can't make a selection if he's been indicted for any crime. The Illinois Supreme [40] Court refused to remove the governor when the request was made by the State Attorney General. The Illinois legislature could have impeached him but it didn't. He is still the governor of Illinois.
Senate objections to Franken and Burris show that the United States Senate has thrown out the rule book and is ignoring established law when it comes to plans for the "presumptive" Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, and the legally appointed Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris.
The Laws of the United States, Illinois, and Minnesota Were Followed
A candidate or appointee only has three requirements to be a legitimate Senator.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." (Author's emphasis) Link [41]
Both Al Franken and Roland Burris pass muster for these requirements.
The XVII Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlines the popular election of Senators and the authority and procedures required to replace them in case they leave for some reason.
AMENDMENT XVII
"Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
"Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
"This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. (Author's emphasis) Link [42]
This amendment provided for the popular election of Senators. This is so simple. Elected and appointed Senators should be immune from the actions of any judicial authority unless there are violations of state or federal law in the process of appointments.
But the Senate has one slim provision that can be invoked in the case of a real controversy or a contrived political event.
Article I. Section 5 states that: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members" (continues) Link [43]
This provides the Senate with the option of rejecting a prospective member. In point of fact, there have been more than a few challenges to elections, mostly in the House. No Senator has ever been denied a seat as a result of Article I, Section 5.
Seat Al Franken as the United States Senator from Minnesota
Al Franken lost the initial vote count by less than one half of one percent of the total vote. That qualified him for an automatic recount. Minnesota election law clearly specifies a recount process and even states that the recount vote will be different than the initial reported election result: "Once the recount is over, the state elections board certifies the election. The election is over at the point the results are certified."
"The final results as modified, if necessary, by the recount are considered the final results of the election and are certified as final by the canvassing board."
Minnesota Election Recounts: Federal, State, and Judicial Offices [44]
The Uptake.Org [45] reported late Saturday night that final recounting is finished and Franken has a 225 vote lead. The Minnesota Secretary of State commented at a post recount conference Saturday night that any election contest challenging the recount would be futile. He praised the openness and fairness of the recount. At a post recount press conference, Coleman's representatives said they'd recommend a challenge in the form of a Minnesota election contest but indicated that the former Senator (his term expired Jan. 3 at noon) had not reached a decision.
The recount proceeded in an open and transparent way. Results were reported by the Secretary of State and in the states major newspapers [46] daily. Controversies between the campaigns were handled by the appropriate courts and decisions were made in a very timely fashion.
Franken followed every single rule. He did what many candidates fail to do. He fought for the right of Minnesota voters to have their ballots counted and the right of all citizens of that state to have a Senator elected by a majority of the voters. Norm Coleman, the initial winner, chided Franken for taking the option of a mandatory recount. Franken didn't back down or complain. He simply followed the rules and will very likely be certified as winner and therefore U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
But Republicans are now talking about making up their own rules. They don't want Franken seated until the conclusion of an anticipated appeal [47] of the election through an "election contest." Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, threatened "chaos" if the Democrats tried "to jam this issue through the Senate and seat a senator who has not been determined to be the winner of the election" StarTribune.com, Jan. 3, 2009 [48].
Wait a minute! The canvassing board is the duly empanelled body that "determines" the "winner" of the election. Franken will most likely be certified Monday, Jan. 5. Coleman's term expired at noon Saturday, Jan. 3, 2009. Does this mean that any certified winner of a Senate race can be denied his seat by a legal challenge of the final decision?
It's absurd. Sen. John Cornyn, (R-TX) can object all he wants. The rules are clear. Franken should be seated if certified the winner, as anticipated. There is no valid precedent in any of the election contests in the past to deny him that seat (See Appendix B).
"Should a contest be brought against a senator-elect prior to his being sworn in, the chamber's custom has been to seat the individual contingent upon his credentials being in order. (10) Thus, the precedent has been that a senator-elect has a "prima facie" right to the seat, while the contest brought against him is being investigated. Moreover, the individual is considered seated "without prejudice" to himself or to the office. This pseudo-legal arrangement allows the Senate to remove the individual by a simple majority vote, should a subsequent investigation find him not to be entitled to the seat. Otherwise, the Senate's only course of action would be "expulsion," which would require a two-thirds majority (12)." Partisanship and Contested Election Cases in the Senate, 1789-2002 [49], Jeffery A. Jenkins, Northwestern University. Studies in American Political Development, 19 (Spring 2005), 53-74, Cambridge University Press. (Author's emphasis)
This is outlined in a report by the Senate [50] outlining the election contests to date.
If Coleman pursues a post certification election contest, the Minnesota canvassing board certification becomes "provisional" by state law indicating that a contest is under way. It may take three months to resolve [51] the election contest. The citizens of Minnesota will be denied representation should the Senate refuse to seat the declared winner after certification.
Seat Roland Burris Now
Roland Burris, the former Illinois Attorney General and Comptroller, was selected by indicted Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the term of President elect Barrack Obama. The day after the governor's arrest, Illinois senior Senator, Richard Durbin (D-IL), appealed to Blagojevich to call for a special election rather than make an appointment to fill President-elect Obama's vacated Senate seat.
"Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.
"We do not prejudge the outcome of the criminal charges against you or question your constitutional right to contest those charges. But for the good of the Senate and our nation, we implore you to refrain from making an appointment to the Senate."
Signed by the entire Senate Democratic leadership and all members of the Democratic Caucus. Sen. Richard Durbin, (D-IL), Dec. 10, 2008 [52]
In the first paragraph above, Sen. Durbin says that the Democratic Caucus "would be forced to exercise its "Constitutional authority" to review the appointment. This is a reference to Article I, Section 5 above. The "Senate Democratic Caucus" has no authority under the United States Constitution. It isn't even mentioned. The Senate does have the authority to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." But no Senator or group of Senators is "forced" to do this.
Doesn't this sound like an implied threat? 'We want a special election not an appointment by you, Rod. Go right ahead and we'll invoke that section of Article I, Section 5 on Qualifications.'
How would they proceed? Will they reject this fully qualified man as a United States Senator because the governor filling the vacancy, unlike all other citizens, is judged guilty as charged without the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Gov. Blagojevich has been charged, not convicted. Is it is still possible to say this: the governor is innocent until proven guilty.
How does it look when the Senate throws away the presumption of innocence by threatening to obstruct a legal appointment based on the presumed guilt of the governor making the appointment?
Why didn't just one Senator stand up and point out that the appointment of Roland Burris was made by a sitting governor according to the laws of the State of Illinois, as the Constitution provides?
Will just one Senator on the Republican side take Sen. Cornyn to task for his obstructionist threat regarding Al Franken?
Why are they so special that they don't have to follow the rules?
We're witnessing the beginning of the 111th Congress engaged in the wholesale disrespect of the law in favor of partisan bias. There is no regard for the law, no regard for process, and no indication of even the slightest degree of insight on the part of those flaunting the laws. There isn't even one objection to the violation of process, rules, and law from any Senator.
The majority of citizens are subject to the laws as they stand. If you steal an iPod, that's a felony in most states. You'll do some time if you can't afford an attorney. If the felony stands, you'll lose your right to vote in many states. In all instances, a felony places huge barriers to gainful employment, including a career in any of the professions.
Yet when it comes time to obey the Constitution that they're obliged to honor and protect, what do the Senators do? They allow their personal bias and political interests to trump the Constitution without any noticeable objection from the legislative body.
This type of disregard for the law by lawmakers is not only unacceptable; it impedes citizens from implementing their own "bailouts" and "recovery" programs by denying them access and positive influence on the government in this critical period of our history.
Memo to Congress: Try following your own rules, precedents, and, most importantly, the Constitution of the United States. The laws and rules that Congress should follow are fairly straight forward and the underlying principals are clear -- respond to the will of the people and respect their right to representation.
END
NB: The obedience to what I characterized as "important laws, particularly those where there is a general consensus and no moral ambiguity" in no way diminishes the utility of civil disobedience for morally repugnant laws like those resisted by Martin Luther King, and others.
This article may be reproduced in part or in whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.
Election Protection, Voter Reports, and Direct Action Links
Were You Looking for Something?
VOTING
Where Is My Poll Site? Caution on Provisional Ballots National Election Protection Hotlines 1-866-MY-VOTE-1 [58] VOTER STORY Online Incident Report Form [59] Fill out form in side bar, at RIGHT >>>>>>>>>>>>> CNN Incident Report System [60] 4 Actions to Protect the Count How-to Videos [62] Protect the Count Instructions [63] Wake Up and Save Your Country Voters Guide [65] Poll Monitoring Guide [66] by Count the Vote/VotersUnite A Call to Electoral Action [67] by the Ruckus Society EDA Code Orange Rapid Response [69] -- Nonviolent vigilance on election night and forward No More Stolen Elections [70] -- Voter Assemblies on the day after and forward Swinging Elections [71]
http://www.vote411.org/pollfinder.php [55]
Most at risk: OH AZ FL CA CO WI IN MI
http://www.demos.org/pubs/provisionalballot_brief.pdf [56]
ELECTION INCIDENT REPORT SYSTEMS (EIRS)
1-866-OUR-VOTE [57] 
EDA Poll Incident Report Form at right>>>>>>>>>
Download Incident Report Form [61]
ELECTION MONITORING
and Download PDF [64]
ELECTION DAY DIRECT ACTION
Election Action Toolkit Download [68]
Register your phone number for emergency action calls
DEEP BACKGROUND
2008 Election Theft Investigations
Those who stole their way into power in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 have no intention of being voted out of power in 2008-- or ever.
They have election theft and public deception down to an art of propaganda and a science of suppression and election count rigging.
Here in brief is the plan to steal Election 2008:
Stack the US Justice Department with partisan ideologues, then abuse official prosecutory powers to suppress opposition voters and candidates.
Exploit centralized state voter registration databases mandated by HAVA to covertly, illegally, deliberately knock millions of voters off the voter rolls
Promote the myth of a "voter fraud" epidemic as justification for enacting state "Voter ID" legislation and other variations on Jim Crow poll taxes to further suppress the vote. (This also serves to divert attention from the real ongoing campaign to commit mass election fraud).
Rig voting machines to manipulate the selection of candidates in the presidential primaries
Manipulate tracking polls to create false impression that the presidential contest is a dead heat
Control the computerized voting machines to deliver a razor thin margin consistent with the prepared cover myth of a close contest.
Conceal the real exit poll numbers and secretly "adjust" them to match the rigged votes.
Control the corporate newsmedia to present false cover stories explaining the contrived election results, while blacking out evidence of the theft.
The Spoonamore Revelations: The Rig is In to Steal 2008
Credits: Introduction below from Mark Crispin Miller's blog, News from Underground [72]. Investigation and videos by Velvet Revolution [73].
Here, in this shattering new interview, Stephen Spoonamore goes into harrowing detail about the Bush regime's election fraud, past, present and--if we don't spread the word right now--to come. Since he's the only whistle-blower out there who knows the perps themselves, and how they operate, we have to send this new piece far and wide.
Here Spoon tells us that McBush's team--i.e., Karl Rove and his henchpersons--have their plan in place to steal this next election: by 51.2% of the popular vote, and three electoral votes.
He also talks about the major role played by the Christianist far right in the electronic rigging of the vote.
And he defines our electronic voting system as a major threat to US national security, calling for it to be junked ASAP, in favor of hand-counted paper ballots.
Since Spoon is a Republican and erstwhile McCain supporter, as well as a noted specialist in nosing out computer fraud, his testimony is essential--not only for its expertise, but, no less, for the impact that his views will surely have on those Republicans who have been loath to see what Bush Co. has done to our election system.
That whole story's just about to break . . . starting with today's news on a breakthrough in the lawsuit that Spoon's testimony has enabled [74], and on other aspects of that all-important case.
--MCM
The video is posted in full below with ten short clips for You Tube viewing. This interview is so important and explosive that we urge everyone to watch it.
Spoonamore says that the GOP wanted e-voting to steal elections but now foreign governments will be hacking and the winner will be determined by the best hackers. He says that if the GOP wins the hacking competition, McCain will win 51.2 percent with three electoral votes over Obama, and it will be a stolen election.
Spoon also makes a crucial point about the people who have been implicated in much of the election theft: "They are religious extremists." He names those who know about stolen elections, and he insists that the only way to protect this election is with paper ballots, hand-counted. Check out this extraordinary interview here.
Entire Spoonamore video
Full-length video [76]
Spoonamore video in 10 YouTube episodes
It's a network, people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyByZx5GEaw [77]
Electronic voting machines are a national security threat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YadsHqxid8I [78]
The genie is out of the bottle. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbxuXC4QlMk [79]
Fifty ways to steal an election
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOHkY7sJ4ZI [80]
Mike Connell: Bush IT Guru
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--KHOo8tkM [81]
The Rapp Family: Ohio election cover-up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJHmuG8d2bQ [82]
Evangelicals and voting machines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z7DK3LgiOA [83]
Paper ballots please
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTe8ppEIic [84]
McCain/Palin will win by theft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lrFkRHrRDI [85]
People should doubt the vote, it's being stolen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s07oi2G_K4c [86]