Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies
  By William Rivers Pitt
  t r u t h o u t | Report

  Thursday 30 December 2004

  Representative John Conyers, ranking minority member of the House
Judiciary Committee, will object to the counting of the Ohio Electors from
the 2004 Presidential election when Congress convenes to ratify those votes
on January 6th. In a letter dispatched to every Senator, which will be
officially published by his office shortly, Conyers declares that he will be
joined in this by several other members of the House. Rep. Conyers is taking
this dramatic step because he believes the allegations and evidence of
election tampering and fraud render the current slate of Ohio Electors
illegitimate.

  "As you know," writes Rep. Conyers in his letter, "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. 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."

  The letter goes on to ask the Senators who receive this letter to join
Conyers in objecting to the Ohio Electors. "I am hoping that you will
consider joining us in this important effort," writes Conyers, "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."

  There are expected to be high level meetings with high ranking Democratic
officials next week to coordinate a concerted lobbying effort to convince
Senators to challenge the vote. The Green Party and David Cobb, as has been
true all along, will be centrally involved in this process, as will Rev.
Jesse Jackson.

  The remainder of the Conyers letter reads:

        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." The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without
argument, the ground thereof." 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 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.

        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. 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".

  A key legal aspect of this is the second clause referenced in the letter.
Rep. Conyers and the other House members involved do not believe the
electors have been lawfully certified. They believe that there has been too
much illegal activity on the part of Blackwell, other election officials,
and Republican operatives on the ground and therefore, as stated in the
letter, the electors were not "lawfully certified" under state law. Next
week, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff will release the report
referenced in the letter, which is now still in draft form, and which led
Mr. Conyers to this decision.

  The Senators who shall receive the greatest focus from Conyers in this
matter are Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Conrad, Corzine, Dodd,
Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Inyoue, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry,
Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Nelson (FL), Jack Reed, Harry
Reid, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wyden and Obama. 

________________________________
 .' 

  -------