Objection to Counting of Ohio Electoral Votes
OBJECTION TO COUNTING OF OHIO ELECTORAL VOTES -- (Senate - January 06, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect and personal regard for my friend from the State of California. It is not often I find myself rising in disagreement, but I emphatically disagree and say respectfully that I believe those involved, citizens from around the country, with all their good intentions, are seriously misguided and are leading us into a very unfortunate precedent that was not in any way contemplated by the Constitution, by the law, or by historical precedent.
Obviously, the law, which was established in 1887, did not envision that our role would be to adjudicate in any State the results of an election for President. If it were the intent, it clearly would not have designed this kind of forum where an objection is raised, we each express our opinion for up to 5 minutes, and then vote on a whole array of facts and allegations and statements and contradictions that we could not possibly in this setting determine fairly and accurately.
If we were to do so, if we were to hypothetically object on an inevitably partisan basis to the actions taken by the electorate of a certain State, certified by the election officers of that State and then brought to us today, if we were to overturn that process and in this instance throw the election into the House of Representatives, the damage it would do to our democracy, to the integrity of our system, would be incalculable. If it were to result hypothetically in an alteration of the publicly expressed electoral will in an election for President, the entire credibility of our system would possibly be destroyed.
I am not the complete authority, but as I have read some of the assertions made about the conduct of the election in Ohio, I find serious imperfections. If we shed that spotlight on most States in this country, including my own State of Minnesota, we would find other imperfections.
Democracy is not a perfect process, but it is a process that we have a responsibility, not in hindsight but with foresight, to try to structure and to continue to perfect so it is as close to perfect as is humanly possible. I share entirely the concerns expressed by my colleague from California and others who said despite our best efforts--and I was part of that collaborative effort in this body and under the Rules Committee in the last couple of years--we made some progress but we still fell short.
I respectfully ask the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Lott, who is here today, if he would be willing to convene hearings in the very near future and look not just at Ohio but at the experience from this election and how it can instruct us to improve that process for the future.
The Senator from California is absolutely right; every American should know he or she has a right to vote, that they can vote expeditiously, that their vote will be counted and it will be tabulated accurately, whether under Republican or Democratic election officials, whether it is for President from one party or another.
Whether I agree or disagree with the judgment of
the American people, I respect and agree more than anything else with that process and the integrity of the process that produces whatever result they determine. It is that which we must guard today. I regret we are in a position of possibly compromising it. It would be a fatal mistake to overturn it in the way suggested.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov