Sixteen minutes into the session when Ohio's votes were read, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, issued her challenge, saying the votes "were not under all of the known circumstances regularly given."
-- Dems Contest Bush Win
I want to ask you for the most precious thing you own - your vote.
This power and right to vote is something you must cherish and guard with courage and dignity.
When someone asks you for your vote, you must be jealous of that vote and must ask yourself, who is it I'm voting for? What kind of person? What does he stand for?
What does he believe in? Nothing wrong will happen to you, the people, if you will use your vote properly and no one man nor group of men can hurt you if you will use your power of a free and honest election.
-- Farmer's Daughter (today's Loretta Young's birthday)
Sen. Boxer joined an official protest of the Ohio electoral vote count submitted by a House member (Stephanie Tubb Jones) from Ohio, a black woman and former state prosecutor/judge. The purpose was to force the required debate in both houses so that focus would be put on irregularities involved in the Ohio election and elsewhere, and that the need for reform would be addressed.
[One important reform, in part addressed by proposed legislation by Rep. Holt (who has expertise in the general area) that would require a printout in all electronic voting machines, since the concept of "black box voting" is quite troubling to the integrity of the electoral process.]
Thus, it was a basically symbolic move, but an important one to address issues that the public as a whole generally are not familiar with, though many are concerned. The value of such public relations advocacy, which is not meant to demean the practice, is quite important in my eyes. For instance, I added to an interesting discussion of the medical malpractice tort reform issue here by pointing out that experts on a panel sponsored by the administration focused on dealing with the trouble of a few bad apples (doctors, not trial lawyers).
Par for the course, the administration ignores advice that doesn't fit their agenda, but the issues need to be fully addressed to the public at large. This is the ultimate role of the loyal opposition, better known as the Democratic Party. Thus, it is a good thing the challenge was made, one of many (I hope) gestures to be made that might be hopeless except for the point being made and the future reforms that might be helped along.
My first sentiment, honestly, was to be annoyed that this wasn't done in 2001. A senator has to join the protest of house members in such cases, and not a one did when several representatives challenged the electoral vote back then. A challenge that was much more substantive than the one this time around, since the result was fully in doubt, not just some number of votes that in all likelihood would not be enough to change the election.
Sen. Boxer was asked about the matter and her honesty was appreciated. Al Gore asked the Democrats not to challenge the vote, so Sen. Boxer did not, but now wished she had. Sen. Boxer made an important point in passing that the issue was not just the candidate, but the voters themselves. Quite true. I wish she felt a bit more that way in Jan, 2001.
The matter at hand is important to the integrity of the electoral process, including how much the people themselves -- all of them, not just those deemed mainstream or what have you -- respect it. The response to such a request, therefore, should be welcomed by both sides. It harkens back to the sentiments of Republicans back in late 1800s, which valued the integrity of the voting process, then challenged by Democrats in the face of clear discrimination against blacks.
The challenge resulted in a requirement that each house supply at most two hours of debate on the topic at hand. Big f-ing deal! If Republicans wanted to use the time to underline the integrity of the election, so be it. Let them show how their candidate was elected in a fully fair way, while saying they support any necessary procedure to help things along next time around. This was beyond their abilities, of course, and the challengers were denounced as extremists and conspiracy theorists ... from the President's press secretary down to Republican members of the House delegation from Ohio.
[Respectful opposition in such cases should exist across the board. Some issue will arise that Democrats will oppose on substantive grounds or because they feel it is a politically motivated attempt to cause trouble. In fact, it will be at least in part based on an important principle or concern that warrants their respect. Some concerns growing out of religious beliefs might fall into this category, but at any rate, some will arise. And, care should be supplied there as well.]
A final word on the constitutionality of the move. The joint session is in place via the Twelfth Amendment to officially count the electoral votes certified by the states last month. What exactly does this "count power" involve? After all, all the states submitted one set of returns, including Ohio, and done so properly (in form). The problem was not in the electors per se, but the voting procedures and the voters themselves. Thus, one might say the challenge was improper.
OTOH, electors are not independent actors, but respond to the popular vote count. Therefore, if the popular vote count was improper, the electoral count would be as well. Ignoring this reality is reliance on form over substance, giving electors more weight than they deserve, and ignoring such independent will when doing so helps answer concerns it might be dangerous.
This much is clear. Ignoring the fears of the American public that their fundamental rights were not properly protected is dangerous with the resulting consequences showing up time and time again. Two hours seems the least that could be offered, even if it is as pro forma as opposition to the questioning of Alberto Gonzales that the challenge interrupted.