You know, if we weren't living in such polarizing times, the thought of looking in to postponing the general elections in the event of a terrorist attack might be something to at least talk about. However, these are very polarizing times, and some already think this is part of some nefarious plan by the Bush Administration to subvert democracy.
Conspiracy theories aside, I think it might be a good idea to talk about this scenario. What would happen if a major attack hit a large city on or before election day? What if there were a high amount of casualities? Would it be wise to still have general election on that date? It's important to remember that on September 11, 2001, New Yorkers planned to vote in a mayoral primary. In light of the attacks, it was postponed.
Some people have said we have not called off elections when wars took place, but then a terrorist attack is different from a war. I would probably lean towards having the election anyway as a sign of strength. However, I think it is an important discussion to have in these dark times.
Posted by Dennis at July 12, 2004 11:41 PMLincoln left a message for us in November of 1864.
"We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.
The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases.
Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good.
http://www.nps.gov/liho/writer/1864.htm
Posted by: dorsano at July 14, 2004 12:00 AMIt's premature. Certainly there should be some planning but there was no need to float this issue at this time just like we didn't discuss nuclear war scenarios during the Cuban Missile Crisis in public.
Unless it's a huge attack that hit multiple parts of the country, I don't see why the elections would not go on.
Posted by: MWS at July 13, 2004 04:32 PMIsn't there already a precedent set for what you do to bring a government into power during chaotic and violent times?
They should just have the election in secret two days prior to the regularly scheduled one (November 6 this year, I think). It would totally throw the terrorists off, and Bush would be assured of receiving nearly 100% of the vote. Has there ever been a mandate like that before?
It's brilliant.
Posted by: shamanic at July 13, 2004 12:06 PMI believe Congress can legally suspend an election in the event of EXTREME emergency. However, under Constitutional law, an election MUST be held and the winner of that election must take office on January 20. So any delay cannot be more than a few days. If this period is extended beyond the January 20 deadline, then the Constitution and Democracy have been effectively usurped and we have witnessed a coup d'etat. Can anyone confirm this?
Posted by: Nancy Harkinson at July 13, 2004 08:46 AMI'm not up to speed on all the election laws so it's difficult for me to venture an opinion that I'm comfortable in defending.
But assuming that it is both legal and practical to extend the elections beyond a day (hold the polls open say from Tuesday to Friday)
that would be my first choice.
The thought of delaying an election smacks way too much of retreat or surrender to me.
We are perfectly capable of making good decisions even when we're under attack.
In the end, election law rules. If no precendent exists, than some fine group of lawyers somewhere
has a chance to play midwife to some very interesting new law.
Posted by: dorsano at July 13, 2004 12:07 AM