Joint Session

JOINT SESSION -- (Senate - January 06, 2005)

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I would like to address a few subjects this morning.

First, regarding the joint session of the House and the Senate that will be meeting this afternoon, I have received a great number of calls and expressions of interest and concern about that historic event--where the two bodies meet in joint session to certify the tally of votes from the electoral college.

Our role is a very limited one under both the Constitution and under Federal law which was passed and has stood since 1887. The role of the House and the Senate is not to adjudicate last November's Presidential election. That should not be our role. Those who want us to insert ourselves into that process are very well intentioned, but the role they envision for us is, in my judgment, inappropriate and potentially even dangerous. Our role today in this joint session of the Senate and the House is one of witnessing the tally of the electoral college vote. If there is an objection, it is based on very limited circumstances.

In fact, only once in the entire history of this legislation since 1886, only one time has there been a formal objection made, and that was for one electoral vote cast by one elector who did not vote in the way in which they pledged--in this case, the District of Columbia; not a State, a district. That objection was rejected by the House and the Senate in 1969.

There has never been in the history of the country an entire State slate of electoral votes objected to or rejected by actions of both the House and the Senate.

If an objection is made today signed by at least one Member of the House and one Member of the Senate, under the law, under the Constitution, the Senate separates from the House and meets for 2 hours. Our debate is limited by law to 2 hours. We each can speak up to 5 minutes and speak only once. Then on the basis of that debate we are supposed to vote--each of us--on whether to accept that electoral slate and the tally certified by the election authorities of the respective States or reject it.

We are a partisan body. We are well intentioned. We are all honorable men and women, as are our colleagues in the House. But we are elected as Democrats or Republicans, and in one case an Independent. For us on the basis of a 2-hour meeting and a 5-minute presentation by each of us to vote on whether to accept or reject the will of the people of a particular State is an enormously dangerous precedent. In my judgment, the standard and the bar under which any objection must qualify for our consideration, much less for our rejection, needs to be a very high one. That is what our Federal law envisions. It says:

No electoral vote or votes from any State which have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified from which but one return has been received shall be rejected.

In other words, if the procedure that was followed by the election authorities of the State is a proper one and if it is certified as proper, if there is only one tally received from a State--in other words, if there are not two different representations of that State's electoral tally--then our function is to witness and acknowledge that that function has been performed properly; it is not to

say whether that election was conducted properly. That review, if it is warranted, is the proper role of the Judiciary, which is supposed to be nonpartisan, which is supposed to be objective, impartial, fair, and ultimately make the decision which, under the respective States and Federal laws and the facts of all sides presented and carefully considered over whatever necessary period of time and finally in that very careful and sober deliberation, is determined to be the proper judgment.

That is not our capability. That is not our role. Under the restrictions of 2 hours today, that would be a travesty of justice. It is a situation where it would be reversed if John Kerry had won this election. If a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House had objected based on the information I have seen regarding the electoral conditions in Ohio or any other State in the election, if they had been rejected and those electoral college votes had thrown the election into the House of Representatives where a partisan majority voted on partisan lines to elect the other candidate as President of the United States, there would be such a public outcry and loss of confidence in the integrity of our electoral process that I fear we would not recover as a nation--at least not for a long time. I would say the same if the situation were reversed.

This is not about partisanship. This is about ensuring the integrity of the legislative process. That is in its broad sense the proper role and responsibility of Congress; that is, one where those who are objecting to the conduct of this last election have solid ground and where we properly should insert ourselves once again as we did after the 2000 election when on a bipartisan basis in this body and the House we passed election reform legislation.

We provided funding for State and local governments to conduct these elections. And the intention was, I might add, under the Constitution they can do so more effectively and more accurately. The principle is everyone should have the right to vote, and that vote should be counted accurately, which is fundamental to our democracy. If we fail at that, if we are not perfect in carrying that out, we are not carrying out our responsibility to protect the sanctity of this great democracy.

I take that responsibility very seriously. As a member of the Senate Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction over that, I will ask the chairman, Senator Lott, to convene hearings into the 2000 election.

We need to learn from that experience. A lot of focus and attention has been directed on Ohio, as it appropriately should. It was a State that ultimately in the final development of events on election night determined the outcome. There were probably other States which had some perhaps even greater imperfections in their voting procedures. That should be used as the basis for further legislation as necessary to safeguard this process so that, in fact and in perception, the American people know they had the right to vote, the chance to vote, and their vote was counted, and that the will of the majority, as reflected in the Presidential election through the electoral college, was faithfully, honestly, and accurately carried out by everyone responsible for doing so.

How much time remains under the order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to complete my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

http://thomas.loc.gov