Objection to Counting of Ohio Electoral Votes

OBJECTION TO COUNTING OF OHIO ELECTORAL VOTES -- (Senate - January 06, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say at the outset, this historic meeting in the Senate will end at some point in a vote. When the time comes to vote I would vote to certify the vote from the State of Ohio.

I do not have personal knowledge of what occurred in the election in Ohio, but I have spoken to those who were present, who tell me that despite irregularities, which I will note, they do not rise to a level where we would challenge the outcome of the election in Ohio.

In addition, the Democratic Party Kerry-Edwards campaign had more than 2,000 lawyers on the ground in Ohio on election day. That was replicated in many States across the Nation. I think what it says is that the nature of this debate and the challenges which we are raising do not go to the results of the election but rather go to our electoral system.

Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives Members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States. Because of different electoral practices in States across America, voters who wish to cast a vote for President or Vice President cannot approach the polls with certainty that their vote will be counted or that they can vote in a fair and convenient manner.

There are litanies of examples that could be cited. I do not challenge the legitimacy of the 2004 election outcome. I do not believe there is evidence of widespread fraud. I believe Senator Kerry was correct in announcing his concession, but let us concede on a bipartisan basis that we can and should do better.

In the case of Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that we have a constitutional right to vote. Thank God. That decision which was handed down in 1964 appears clear and unequivocal. But wait. Four years ago that same Supreme Court, in the case of Bush v. Gore, reached a different conclusion and stated that the individual citizen has no Federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.

It appears that this statement by the highest court in the land is inconsistent with a decision reached 40 years ago.

So where do we stand today? There is great uncertainty. Congressman Jesse Jackson of my home State of Illinois is proposing a constitutional amendment to make it clear and unequivocal that we have a constitutional right to vote in America. I am loathe to jump on the bandwagon for constitutional amendments. I have seen some things done here that are not very proud moments in the history of the Senate when it comes to offering constitutional amendments, but I will take this one seriously.

When you look at the results of the election in Ohio and in many other States, serious questions are raised. These have been documented by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary of this report, entitled ``Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio,'' be printed in the RECORD.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the irregularities were not confined to the State of Ohio. Let me give you an Illinois example. In DuPage County, IL, 26 percent of provisional ballots were counted, but in Chicago, a few miles away, 61 percent were counted. That is more than twice as many. That is largely because Chicago allows provisional ballots to be cast by a voter who turns up in the wrong precinct on election day. DuPage County does not, the county right next to Cook County.

How is it that the fundamental right of an American citizen to have his or her vote counted can vary dramatically--not just from State to State but from county to county? We need to address this on a national basis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov