[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 4 (Saturday, January 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H47-H53]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECEIVING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL BALLOTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I follow my colleague, because
I believe it is important to speak to the real authority of this
Nation, and that is the people of the United States of America, as I as
well speak to my colleagues. I believe that this day should be further
enlightened with an explanation of the reason of the objection in
opposition of some reasons of the House of Representatives.
First, let me acknowledge something that is very dear to me: my
choice to be a member of the United States Congress and the people's
House is a purposeful choice. That choice is because it is, in fact,
the people's House, the body closest to the American people, to touch
and feel them and to understand them. For that reason, as a Texan, I
went to Florida and spent almost the entire month of November
interacting with Floridians, young people, minorities, working people,
and the elderly. And to a one, they expressed to me their
consternation, their concern, their fear, that they had not voted
correctly, or that they were thwarted and prohibited from voting.
So as I reflected on this very important day; in fact, January 6,
2001, a day in years past that most Americans never realized in
presidential elections that on this day, as ordered by statute, we are
to come here and to affirm the electoral college.
But as I rummaged, if you will, or ran my fingers through the
Constitution of the United States, I found the words of Alexander
Hamilton, and they say, ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
rummaged, for among old parchments or musty records, they are written
as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of
the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal
power.''
So I felt obligated passionately, without regard for political
reprimand, to come forward and to voice my opposition to the inaccurate
and the unjust count in the State of Florida. There are voiceless
people throughout this Nation in States all across this country who
believe that their votes were not accurately counted. Today, in order
to do that, I presented to this body a letter signed by Members of the
House without a Senator to suggest that I would object to the
inaccurate count in Florida, as well as the violations of the Voter
Rights Act of 1965.
Additionally, I submitted a motion to delay, because what is
required, or what we should have, is a quorum. That means that all of
my colleagues should have been able to secure the appropriate time to
be able to be here. I respect them. I know that they have
responsibilities in their districts. So my motion would have delayed
this vote, until a quorum could have been achieved, for both the House
and the Senate. Because I would remind my colleagues that in this
place, it is the people's House and every single American should have
had the right of having their representative here. I wanted to give my
colleagues the chance to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the diplomacy and the decorum of the
President in this instance, the Vice President of the United States, Al
Gore. I cannot thank him enough for the way he presided over these
proceedings, and I understand his overruling my objections. But in so
doing, I must say to my colleagues that even as he overruled it because
of the Rules of the House, I stand here today to put on record the fact
that it is important that we acknowledge the existence of the Voter
Rights Act of 1965, which affirms the right of every U.S. citizen to
cast their ballot and have that ballot counted and be protected without
compromise and without regard to the voter's race.
Mr. Speaker, this is a task for the Federal Government, because
Federal guarantees and Federal elections are at stake. That is why on
the very first day of this new body, I put into the record H.R. 60 and
H.R. 62. I am serious
[[Page H48]]
about my criticism, and that is a major piece of legislation to reform
the electoral system, to ensure that in Federal elections that new
technology be used across this Nation.
Let me say to those of us who are Americans, I appreciate the
challenges that we have. Therefore, I say to my colleagues, do we not
think a country that prides itself in democracy, prides itself in the
recognition of the 3 bodies of government, that we should have a
national Federal holiday so that we can vote, so that the doors of the
work places are closed, so that everyone, no matter what one's party
affiliation or what one's view is, be able to go. That is what H.R. 62
is, to declare every 4 years a national holiday so that all Americans
might vote.
Many of my colleagues may not be aware that the numbers of
allegations of voter irregularities that occurred in the State of
Florida are revealed to have been that a total 180,000 ballots were not
counted in Florida's presidential election. In four counties it is
found, where the hand count was sought, all heavily democratic areas,
over 73,000 ballots were not counted in the presidential tally. Might I
share with my colleagues a personal view. I actually believe that after
November 7, we should have recounted the entire State. I have no
problem in finding out the truth. The Declaration of Independence has
indicated that there is a self-evident truth, and why not find out
whether or not all of these votes were accurately counted. We did not
do that. But the Florida Supreme Court on November 21st attempted to
allow us to count the votes.
My great disappointment was that the Florida Supreme Court oversaw
State law, as is rightly so, the separation of States from the Federal
Government, and what happened? The interjection of 5 partisan Supreme
Court justices who, in their own right, suggested that this was a
unanimous decision on December 12 at 10 p.m., way after the time we
could have gone into the count, after having stopped the counting over
the weekend, indicated that they would make the decision who would be
the President of the United States: President-elect George Bush and Mr.
Cheney.
I am not here to thwart the transfer of power on January 20, 2001. I
will abide by the laws of this Nation, and so will the rest of America.
But might I say, it does not behoove a country that believes in
freedom, that projects itself as a leader of the free world, where
other nations look to us to tell how they can vote and be free, the
Bosnias, the Kosovos, the South Africas, that we too not stand up and
be counted and remain steadfast on the question that every precious
vote counts and the will of the people, no matter what it be, that one
agrees or disagrees, be the deciding factor.
So I say to my colleagues, the court, as Justice Breyer said, is not
acting to vindicate a fundamental constitutional principle, but such as
the need to protect a basic human liberty. What Justice Breyer said is
that the Supreme Court was denying us our liberty, denying us our
right, and that the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly on December 12,
2001.
I leave my colleagues simply with the understanding that freedom is
not free, and that all of us might fight within the laws of this Nation
and the right to protest, the First Amendment right to speak, to be
able to protect, and yes, to be able to speak on behalf of voiceless
Americans who voted their conscience.
Mr. President-elect, I look forward to working with you. I hope that
you will draw us into your chambers, into the White House, and I ask
that we sit down and talk about the issues. I hope you will hear our
voices on John Ashcroft and Linda Chavez, because if we are to heal
this Nation, we must heal it together.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the receiving of this years
presidential electoral ballots, specifically, those electoral votes
from the state of Florida, in what was the closest and most contested
presidential election in the history of our great nation.
I have been raised to tell the truth. I also have been raised to
respect our flag, the freedom of our democracy and the right to express
our fundamental beliefs.
While I realize that the transfer of power will occur on January 20,
2001, barring a different decision today, I believe it is imperative
that I attempt to register an objection on the grounds of the
inaccurate count and undercount in Florida resulting in the election
being won for Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and not Mr. Gore and Mr.
Lieberman.
I believe if the results remain the same today, then at least this
Congress should promptly engage in a serious review and reform of the
election process in this nation as a recognition of the
disenfranchisement of voters, not only in Florida but around the
country.
FACTS
On November 7th 2000, I was in Nashville, Tennessee, watching the
election results when about 3 a.m. in the morning, the votes that were
originally called for Governor Bush deteriorated to just a difference
of 569 votes or less than 1 percent between Vice President Gore and
Governor Bush, thus, triggering an automatic recount.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2000, Florida's Republican Secretary of
State Katherine Harris gave a 5 p.m. for countries to report their
election returns. Also, on that day, Broward County granted Vice
President Gore's request for a full hand recount, however, Circuit
Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Harris could enforce the deadline but
required her to use flexibility in her decision.
On Wednesday, November 15, 2000 Secretary Harris announced that the
official Bush lead over Gore was 300 votes and gave a 2 p.m. deadline
for countries to justify late returns. Florida's Supreme Court rejected
Bush's bid to block the recount and a federal appeals court in Atlanta
agreed to hear Bush's request to block all Florida hand recounts. Palm
Beach County also got the green light for its recount with a ruling
that the canvassing board could decide how to review the votes.
On Thursday, November 16, 2000, Secretary Harris refused counties'
justifications for submitting late returns, however, the Florida
Supreme Court gave the green light to Florida counties to go ahead with
ballot hand recounts.
On Friday, November 17, 2000, Circuit Judge Lewis ruled that Harris
could reject returns filed after the November 14th deadline. Vice
President Gore appealed Lewis's decision to the Florida Supreme Court
and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Harris could not
certify the results on Saturday; the Court set hearings on the issue
for Monday, November 20. Also on that day, thousands of Florida
absentee ballots from overseas are due by midnight which would be
included in the state total. In addition, a hearing is held on the
constitutionality of a revote in Palm Beach.
On Saturday, November 18th, 2000, States had a noon deadline to
submit overseas ballot counts. Hand recounts proceed in Broward and
Palm Beach counties and Miami-Dade County officials meet again to
consider a full recount of more than 600,000 votes.
On Monday, November 20 the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments on
whether Harris had final authority to certify ballots as to the Nov. 14
deadline and the Florida Attorney General said that overseas ballots,
mostly from military bases, that were rejected because they lacked
postmarks should be counted.
On Tuesday, November 21st, 2000, them Florida Supreme Court ruled
that hand-recounted votes could be accepted for six more days.
On Wednesday, November 22nd, 2000, Miami-Dade County halted its
unfinished recount amid dispute over standards for counting ballots due
to heated protests by a hysterical pro-Bush crowd. On that same day
Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the recount.
On Thursday, November 23rd, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court rejected
Gore's appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount. On
Friday, November, 24, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Bush's
appeal and on Saturday, November 25, Bush dropped his lawsuit on
counting military absentee ballots, but filed suits in five individual
counties.
On Sunday, November 26, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court set 5 p.m.
deadline for the Secretary of State's office to accept all recounts.
Florida certified the election results, declaring Bush the winner by
537 of the nearly 6 million votes cast. The Palm Beach hand recounts
are not included in the total.
On Monday, November 27, 2000, Gore went on national television to
defend his call for recounts and filed suit in local count contesting
Florida the results.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, Gore called for a seven-day plan to
recount Florida votes to begin immediately. The Leon County Circuit
Court Judge agreed to consider the recount but held off on hearings
until December 2nd. Also, Gore and Bush lawyers delivered briefs to the
U.S. Supreme Court for their December 1st hearing.
On Thursday, November 30, 2000 Palm Beach shipped ballots to
Tallahassee for a December 2nd hearing and Gore appealed Leon County's
refusal to begin immediate recount to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Friday, December 1st, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices heard
the Gore-Bush
[[Page H49]]
case. Also on that day, the Florida Supreme Court rejected Gore's
appeal for expedited recount also ruling the ``butterfly ballot''
constitutional.
On Saturday, December 2nd, 2000, the Leon County Circuit Court
considered recounts of 1 million ballots from Miami-Dade and Palm Beach
counties.
On Monday, December 4, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court sets aside the
Florida Supreme Court decision extending deadline for recounts, and
sent it back to the state court for further clarification of its
ruling.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court scheduled oral
arguments for Thursday for Gore's appeal of Monday's ruling rejecting
his challenge to the certification of Bush as Florida's winner and the
11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also heard arguments on Bush's
effort to have the manual recounts declared unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2000, the Federal appeals court in Atlanta
refused to throw out recounted votes in three Florida counties. On
Thursday, December 7th, Gore lawyers argued for recounts before Florida
Supreme Court. Also, trials on absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin
counties ended.
On Friday, December 8th, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered
immediate manual recounts of ballots from Miami-Dade and other
counties. The 4-3 vote gave Gore another 383 votes from earlier partial
recounts. Also on that day, the Circuit courts in Seminole and Martin
counties rule that absentee ballots did not violate the law though
Republican workers filled in missing ID numbers.
On Saturday, December 9th, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
Bush's appeal for a halt to recount and scheduled oral arguments from
both sides for Monday, December 11th.
On Monday, December 11, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral
arguments on Bush's appeal to halt the Florida vote recount.
On Tuesday, December 12th, 2000 Florida designated 25 electors
pledged to Bush for the Electoral College vote. The Florida Supreme
Court rejected Democrats' bid to throw out absentee ballots they
charged that Republicans tampered with.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2000, Bush declared victory, and Gore
conceded.
analysis
Mr. Speaker, upon my recital of this past elections events, I rise
today to express concern for the health of our democracy. I am an
American. These words are the montra of our nation. These words express
our unity of purpose to create a different form of government that will
allow for all to be heard equally without prejudice or favor.
Mr. Speaker, I am an American. I say this with pride for my country
and its heritage and prejudice toward other forms of governance and
community that do not embrace liberty and freedom for all.
I am an American and therefore it goes without saying that I truly
believe that all men, the species human both male and female, are
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
which is expressed by our nation's founders in the Constitution of the
United States.
While I have accepted and will abide by the decision of our nation's
highest court which resulted in President-Elect Bush's winning Florida
States electoral votes which were in heavy contest, I have risen today
to speak on the need for election reform; and to lift my voice on
behalf of the thousands of disfranchised voters in Florida and states
throughout the nation who were silenced.
Mr. Speaker, on November 7th, 2000, only some of the citizens of the
United States were able to exercise their right to vote and have it
counted. It is inescapable that critical mistakes were made and there
were serious allegations of violations of Voter Rights Act of 1965 that
have been made during and after the November 7, elections and
throughout the nation.
Victims and witnesses to Election Day irregularities and
discriminatory practices at voting precincts came forward in
significant numbers to tell their stories of how their votes were
discarded and their votes silenced which resulted in their
disenfranchisement. In fact, many disenfranchised voters did ask,
``could I get another ballot,'' but were told they could not.
On November 11, the NAACP conducted a hearing in Florida regarding
the election. After reviewing allegations made at the NAACP hearing and
hearing numerous other allegations from constituents and citizens
throughout the country, I and members of the CBC met and also held
press conferences to announce that there was substantial evidence
indicating that many African-Americans and other minorities were denied
their fundamental rights as citizens of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we must do all that we can today, to stop these
political partisan games from being played in the future to usurp the
right given to all American citizens, the right to vote. We should look
to being a government of the people that is governed by the people. We
must listen to the voices of the people spoken through their votes,
which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Thomas Paine's work titled the ``Rights of Man,'' said this regarding
constitutions; ``That men mean distinct and separate things when they
speak of constitutions and of governments. . . . A constitution is not
the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government
without a constitution, is power without a right.''
The people of this nation at its inception said, ``We the People of
the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution
for the United States of America.''
Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, as the elected representative for all
the people, we need to find a remedy to ensure that every citizen's
vote counts. The information presented in the Florida State Legislature
hearings and NAACP hearings in Florida included first-hand accounts
from victims and eyewitnesses of the following:
1. That citizens who were properly registered were denied the right
to vote because election officials could not find their names on the
precinct rolls and that some of these voters went to their polling
place with registration identification cards but still were denied the
right to vote;
2. That registered voters were denied the right to vote because of
minor discrepancies between the name appearing on the registration
lists and the name on their identification;
3. The first-time voters who sent in voter registration forms prior
to the state's deadline for registration were denied the right to vote
because their registration forms were not processed and their names did
not appear on the precinct rolls;
4. That African-American voters were singled out for criminal
background checks at some precincts and that one voter who had never
been arrested was denied the right to vote after being told that he had
a prior felony conviction;
5. That African-American voters were required to show photo ID while
white voters at the same precincts were not subjected to the same
requirement;
6. That voters who requested absentee ballots did not receive them
but were denied the right to vote when they went to the precinct in
person on election day;
7. That hundreds of absentee ballots of registered voters in
Hillsborough County (a county covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act) were improperly rejected by the Supervisor of Elections and not
counted;
8. That African-American voters who requested assistance at the polls
were denied assistance;
9. That African-American voters who requested the assistance of a
volunteer Creole/English speaker who were willing to translate the
ballot for limited proficient voters were denied such assistance;
10. That police stopped African-American voters as they entered and
exited a polling place in Progress Village Center; and
11. That election officials failed to notify voters in a
predominantly African American precinct that their polling place, a
school, was closed and failed to direct them by signs or other means to
the proper polling location.
There were also an unprecedented number of complaints of similar
problems in other parts of the nation. Calls flooded the NAACP offices
and other agencies seeking to lodge complaints about registered voters
who were turned away from the polls because their names mysteriously
did not appear in the precinct books.
In Virginia, there were numerous complaints of voters who registered
in social services offices under the provisions of the National Voter
Rights Act of 1965 who were not allowed to vote because their
registrations were not recorded. Among other examples, there were
numerous reports in New York city that minority voters were denied the
right to vote and in St. Louis, eyewitnesses say that at some precincts
African-American voters were asked to show ID, while white voters in
the same line were not asked to produce any identification.
These allegations raise potential violations of Sections 2 and 5 of
the Voter Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, as well as several
provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C.
1973gg-5(a) which affirms the right of every U.S. citizen to cast a
ballot and have that ballot be counted and be protected without
compromise and without regard to the voter's race. This is a task for
the federal government because federal guarantees in federal elections
are at stake.
Mr. Speaker, this was truly a time in which justice delayed was
justice denied. In addition to the number of allegations of voting
irregularities that occurred in the state of Florida, it was revealed
that a total of 180,000 ballots
[[Page H50]]
were not counted in Florida's presidential vote. The Gore Campaign,
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, civil rights attorney's and
the disenfranchised voters themselves sought for every Floridian's vote
to be counted by requesting a hand count in the four counties that
demonstrated voting irregularities. In these four counties in which the
hand count was sought--all heavily Democratic areas--over 73,000
ballots were not counted in the presidential tally.
The Florida State Supreme Court attempted to remedy the
disenfranchisement of its voters on November 21st, 2000, by holding in
a unanimous decision to allow for a recount. It was a victory for the
people and a victory for democracy. However, this decision was
ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a curium decision
(unanimous decision), and remanded back to the Florida State Supreme
Court for clarification of the authority the Florida Supreme Courts
decision was relied upon.
Mr. Speaker, from day one, all that I have wanted is for the will of
the people of Florida to be completely and accurately reflected. It is
evident by the laws of the state of Florida and the judicial history of
election law in this country that a recount was a matter for the State,
and not Federal Courts to decide.
Mr. Speaker I come from a county of about 1 million. 995,000 people
voted in Harris County. We discarded 6,000 votes in Harris County,
Texas. However, in one Palm Beach County in Florida, approximately
19,000 ballots were discarded. In that one county 19,000 citizen's
voices were silenced. Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, a
strong Bush supporter who campaigned for him gave a short deadline for
the electoral votes to be delivered to her which would not allow
adequate time for a recount, thus, ensuring the disenfranchisement of
the Florida citizens and delivering that state's electoral votes to
Bush. This in violation of the state of Florida's own election laws
which in Florida, as in most states, the will of the people is
determined by a hand recount.
The Florida Supreme Court, the highest court of that state, in a
unanimous ruling agreed that this was indeed the law of Florida and
overruled the Florida Secretary of States deadline, thus, calling on a
recount by the four counties with the highest volume of disenfranchised
votes. In reaching its holding the Florida State Supreme Court cited
the Illinois Supreme Court who made it clear that the vote intent
standard ought to be the standard used in determining the will of the
people. The Illinois Supreme Court had dealt specifically with the
dimpled chad issue.
The Bush campaign argued against the Florida State Supreme Court
ruling stating that this process would cause disruption and instability
and yet it was their campaign that went to court in the first place and
it was their campaign that suggested that the rule of law and our
Constitutional processes be circumvented in favor of a partisan
political solution.
I have always believed that more people went to the polls in Florida
to vote for Al Gore than went to vote for George W. Bush. I believe
that the hand recount would have shown that to be the case. And the
fact that the Bush campaign fought this so strenuously shows that they
knew this to be the case also.
We are a nation of laws. We have been one for over 200 years. The
Florida State Supreme Court is the highest court of the state. Their
job was to resolve legal questions, such as the one they looked at on
November 21st.
I had faith in the people of Florida. However, Republicans ignored
the will of the people by stalling and ultimately defeating the recount
process. Assertions had been made during the Florida Electoral Vote
contest that Republicans had made efforts to try and stall the recount
effort in Florida. In fact, Republicans involved in the recount process
had even admitted that they used delaying tactics. They continued to
object to as many ballots as they could to slow down the recount
process. In one Palm Beach County precinct alone, they objected to over
200 ballots to force a slowdown of the recount process. However, when
those ballots went in front of the county canvassing commission, only 3
were called into question.
Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2000 the Florida State Supreme Court
again took up the issue remanded to them by the U.S. Supreme Court on
whether to allow for a recount, and again the Florida State Supreme
Court held in favor of an immediate manual recount of the presidential
election under-votes in Miami-Dade Counties and all Florida counties.
I believe that this was the right decision. Floridians just wanted to
have a fair process for the counting of their votes and this was
granted by the Florida State Supreme Court. As American citizens they
are entitled to that. The Florida Supreme Court's ruling was delivered
a critical juncture in the face of the recount process and would have
resolved much of the legal ambiguity regarding recounts that haunts
this country today.
The Florida Supreme Court's decision should have been implemented as
ordered without hesitation. We would have then been able to come
together as Americans, thus, ensuring that the 43rd President of the
United States was elected by the people. However, on December 9, 2000,
the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an injunction to stop the manual recount
of the under-votes in Miami-Dade County and all the Florida counties
ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
On the night of December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a
controversial 5-4 decision delivered the court holding which prohibited
all the legal votes in Florida from being counted, thus, ensuring then-
Governor Bush receiving Florida's electoral votes to win the
presidential election. As I stated at the beginning of my statement;
while I was disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling, as a
member of the United States Congress sworn to uphold the laws and
Constitution of the United States, I accepted and will abide by the
decision of our nation's highest court as the supreme legal and
constitutional authority of our great country. However, I concur with
Justice Ginsburg's statement when she said ``the Court's conclusion
that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy
the Court's own judgement will not allow to be tested. Such an untested
prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.''
Furthermore, Justice Stevens assessment that this nation will never
know with certainty the true identity of the winner of this years
presidential election. If we have learned anything from the Justices of
the Supreme Court, however, is that it is up to this nation, through
the United States Congress, state legislatures, and local communities
to correct the problems highlighted in the past year's presidential
election to correct the problems to ensure that the will of all the
people in future elections is not thwarted.
In addition, Justice Breyer, like three other justices, found an
alternative constitutional analysis that would have permitted a recount
of counting process in Florida stating ``. . . [T]here is no
justification for the majority's remedy, which is simply to reverse the
lower court and halt the recount entirely. An appropriate remedy would
be, instead, to remand this case with instructions that, even at this
late date, would permit the Florida Supreme Court to require all
undercounted votes in Florida, including those from Broward, Volusia,
Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties, whether or not previously
recounted prior to the end of the protest period, and to do so with a
single-uniform substandard.''
Justice Breyer emphasized that ``by halting the manual recount, and
thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes would not be counted under
any standard, the Court crafted a remedy out of proportion to the
asserted harm. And that remedy harms the very fairness interests the
Court is attempting to protect. The manual recount would itself redress
a problem of unequal treatment of ballots.''
Justice Breyer also added: ``. . . [The] Court is not acting to
vindicate a fundamental constitutional principle, such as the need to
protect a basic human liberty. No other strong reason to act is
present. Congressional statutes tend to obviate the need. And, above
all, in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split
decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the
Court itself. That confidence is a public treasure. It has been built
slowly over many years, some of which were marked by Civil War and the
tragedy of segregation. It is a vitally necessary ingredient of any
successful effort to protect basic liberty and indeed, the rule of law
itself. We run no risk of returning to the days when a President
(responding to this Court's effort to protect the Cherokee Indians)
might have said, ``John Marshall has made his decision; now let him
enforce it! Loth, Chief John Justice Marshall and The Growth of the
American Republic 365 (1948). But we do risk a self-inflicted wound--
wound that may harm not just the Court, but the Nation.''
Mr. Speaker, the basic right to have your voted counted is a basic
right guaranteed and protected by the United States Constitution. It is
understood that the preamble to the Constitution of the United States
is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,
however, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the
origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. In Jacobson vs.
Massachusetts, Justice Harlan wrote in 1905, ``Although that preamble
indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and
established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source
of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United
States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those
expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be
implied from those so granted.''
This constitution like all constitutions is the property of a nation,
and not of those who exercise the government. It is our belief, as
Americans, that this democracy--our democracy was and continues under
the direct authority of the people of this nation.
[[Page H51]]
All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. In the
United States the beginning of power is found in the Constitution, but
in the history of mankind power has found two sources it may either be
delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources of power other than
the consent of the governed. All delegated power is trust, and all
assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter truth of this
statement it only makes its truth clearer to those who can see and to
those who are enlightened history.
The Constitution of the United States does not provide an explicit
language to preserve the boundaries nor does it provide checks and
balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of
government that it establishes. However, it does grant to these
branches of federal government separately the power to legislate, to
execute, and to adjudicate, and it provides throughout the document the
means to accomplish those ends in a manner that would allow each of the
branches of government to avoid ``blandishments and incursions of the
others.'' The beauty of this document is its goals, which was to order
to system of federal government by conferring sufficient power to
govern while withholding the ability to abridge the liberties of the
governed. To this reason, I share Henry David Thoreau's view that
``Government does not keep the country free.''
The long standing theory of elaborated and implemented constitutional
power is grounded on several principles chief of which are: the
conception that each branch performs unique and identifiable functions
that are appropriate to each; and the limitation of the personnel of
each branch to that branch, so that no one person or group should be
able to serve in more than one branch simultaneously.
Paine offered that Government is not a trade which any man or body of
men has a right to set and exercise for his own emolument, but is
altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated,
and by who it is always presumable.
Unfortunately in the evidence of the resolution of the election that
very thing has occurred. The United States Supreme Court who is sworn
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States may in fact
have issued a ruling that will erode the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has more cases presented than it can possibly
review and for this reason has over time applied two rules to judge the
appropriateness of review the Standing Doctrine and the Ripeness
Doctrine.
Standing as a doctrine is composed of both constitutional and
prudential restraints on the power of the federal courts to render
decisions. In Valley Forge Christian College vs. Americans United,
decided in 1982, Renquist wrote that the exercise of judicial power
under Art. III is restricted to litigants who can show ``injury in
fact'' resulting from the action that they seek to have the court
adjudicate. Doctrine of ``standing'' has a core constitutional
component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable
to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be
redressed by the requested relief. The concepts of the standing
doctrine present questions that must be answered by reference to the
Article III notion that federal courts may exercise power only in the
last resort and as a necessity, and only when adjudication is
consistent with a system of separated powers and the dispute is one
traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial
process.
Justice O'Connor wrote in the Court's majority opinion in Allen vs.
Wright, 468 US 73, ``All of the doctrines that cluster about Article
III--not only standing but mootness, ripeness, political question, and
the like--relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to
an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and
explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the
powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of
government.''
The case brought before the Court titled Bush vs. Gore did not
establish the fine points of standing because no injury had been
incurred by Bush. It was only the presumption of impending injury that
prompted the Court's action. Bush anticipated losing the electors
apportioned to the State of Florida, which would have decided the
national election in Vice President Gore's favor.
Just as the question of standing has weight and breath in the life of
Judicial Review so does the Ripeness Doctrine, which defines when a
case may be brought before the Supreme Court for review. In the case of
United Public Workers vs. Mitchell, the Court ruled that it could not
rule in the matter because the plaintiffs ``where not threatened with
actual interference with their interest,'' there was only a potential
threat of interference of their interest. The Court viewed the threat
hypothetical and not established in the realm of reality where squarely
their purview had effect. It had been well established and excepted
that pre-enforcement challenges to criminal and regulatory legislation
will often be unripe for judicial consideration because of uncertainty
of enforcement.
The Court when it ordered a stop to the counting of ballots ordered
by the Florida Supreme Court ended any possible light being shown on
the issue of injury to presidential candidate Bush.
The dissenting view offered by Justice Stevens and joined by Justice
Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, Stevens stated that the issue presented to
the Court had been assigned to the States by the Constitution. Article
II, Section 1 of the Constitution defines that each state shall
appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number
of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives
to which the state may be entitled for the purpose of choosing the
President and Vice President of the United States.
There is inherent in the arcane and disjointed method of local state,
and national elections disparity of treatment in that all voters do not
use the same method of voting. The condition of the Florida election
was the fruit of this disparity in that the variations in the methods
voting lead to different methods of tallying votes and different
success or failure rates in the accuracy of those tallies. The more
modern pencil mark to fill an oval on a paper ballot that is fed into a
computer to tally votes was found to only hold a three percent error
rate while the punch card method of tallying votes had a fifteen
percent error rate.
It is clear that the injured party in this matter are the voters of
Florida who had to suffer through the biased actions of a Secretary of
State who acted as the Co-Florida State Chair for the Bush for
President effort. The voters struggled to be heard in the face of
repeated challenges and disruptions designed to end an order process of
discerning voter intent when the machine failed in that determination.
A constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who
exercise the government. All the constitutions of America are declared
to be established on the authority of the people.
Aristotle in his work titled ``Politics'' stated that ``democracy is
the form of government in which the free are rulers.'' With the Supreme
Court choosing by a one vote majority to rule in favor of the hand
counting of ballots, as long as the method is uniform and did not
violate the Safe Harbor Provision of the Constitution seemed in its
reading to be an affirmation of the free ballot. However, history will
not blur the directive of this decision, because it was delivered with
only one hour and forty minutes left for the Florida Supreme Court to
digest, implement and complete.
Over the course of the weeks leading to the decision it had been
established that the process of counting ballots by hand was laborious
and very time consuming. The force of the decision was an affront to
the spirit and life of our nation's democracy. It was an act of treason
to all of those who have fought, lost eye, limb or life in the effort
to keep themselves and their progeny free to exercise those precious
values of America's brand of democracy.
In the words of ``Freedom,'' a poem by Langston Hughes we hear the
threat to our national existence, ``freedom will not come today, this
year nor ever, through compromise and fear. I have as much right as the
other fellow has to stand on my two feet and own the land. I tire so of
hearing people say, let things take their course. Tomorrow is another
day. I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I cannot live on
tomorrow's bread. Freedom is a strong seed planted in the soil. I live
here too. I want freedom just as you.''
I fear that our nation has lapsed into a world of ``Orwellian double
speak.'' Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision the double-speak of
the Republican Party was that very open public process of hand counting
ballots was the casting of votes. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court
decision to in effect select the 43rd President of the United States
the Republican leadership engaged in a display of double-speak. ``The
president-elect was chosen by a constitutional method, and ``President-
elect Bush won the State of Florida,'' are only two of the double-speak
phrases which have resulted.
The result of this infamous decision is that thousands of people were
shunned by the country we have known, slaved and died for on and off
its blooded battlefields. Exposed naked and raw before the public stage
as being of no consequence worth mentioning. I do remember the cries
from Republicans and Democrats after it was learned that military
service men and women votes cast by absentee ballot were under threat
of not being counted. The cry that we should not disenfranchise these
Americans was shared by all who appreciate their dedication and service
to our nation. My pain was the lack of concern that those who were
veterans of past conflicts were not given the same level of concern
that their votes not go uncounted because they resided in Palm Beach
County, and Miami County, Florida.
conclusion
The principle of equality died a public death the day that the
Supreme Court acted under the one vote majorities interest in rescuing
the
[[Page H52]]
failed presidential bid of their fellow Republican by acting in a
perverse manner cloaked in judicial ease.
Niccolo Machiavelli would be very proud of the Republican Party's
success at gainning the Presidency of the United States. It is a
tragedy that the will of the people was ignored and the right to be
counted was not adhered to. What occurred during the past election was
``modern day Jim Crowism,'' which was erected from the burial grounds
of statutes passed by the legislatures of the Southern states to
prevent African Americans from voting after the Reconstruction era.
While statutes were not enacted during this past election to prevent
minorities from voting, affirmative actions were taken that prevented
minorities, women, the elderly and thousands of Democrats from invoking
their constitutional right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, we must not let these ``Jim Crow'' actions to revive
itself from the burial ground of this country's segregationist past. To
do so would wash away the blood stains, and tears of our ancestors,
parents and even ourselves who fought for the right of every citizen's
voice to be heard legless of race, ethnicity, gander, age, and yes,
even political affilation.
Election Events
Tuesday, November 7--Voters across the United States cast
their ballots.
Wednesday, November 8--The races in Florida, New Mexico and
Oregon are too close to call.
Tuesday, November 14--5 PM deadline for counties to report
elections returns imposed by Florida's Republican Secretary
of State Katherine Harris.
Broward County reverses course and grants Gore's request
for a full hand recount.
Circuit Judge Terry Lewis rules that Harris could enforce
the deadline but requires her to use flexibility in her
decision.
Wednesday, November 15--Harris announces official Bush lead
of 300 votes and gives a 2 p.m. deadline for counties to
justify late returns.
Florida's Supreme Court rejects Bush's bid to block the
recount.
A federal appeals court in Atlanta agrees to hear Bush's
request to block all Florida hand recounts.
Palm Beach County gets a green light for its recount with a
ruling that the canvassing board could decide how to review
the votes.
Thursday, November 16--Harris refuses counties'
justifications for submitting late returns.
Florida Supreme Court gives the green light to Florida
counties to go ahead with ballot hand recounts.
Bush decides against contesting Iowa results, which give
Gore a narrow lead.
Friday, November 17--Circuit Judge Lewis rules that Harris
can reject returns filed after Nov. 14 deadline.
Gore appeals Lewis decision to Florida Supreme Court,
Florida Supreme Court rules Harris may not certify results on
Saturday; sets hearings on issue for Monday, Nov. 20.
Thousands for Florida absentee ballots from overseas are
due by midnight Friday and will be added to the state total.
Hearing is held on the constitutionality of a re-vote in
Palm Beach.
Saturday, November 18--States have noon deadline to submit
overseas ballot counts.
Hand recounts proceed in Broward and Palm Beach counties.
Miami-Dade County officials meet again to consider a full
hand recount of more than 600,000 votes.
Monday, November 20--Florida Supreme Court hears arguments
on whether Harris has final authority to certify ballots as
of Nov. 14 deadline.
Florida Attorney general says overseas ballots, mostly from
military bases, that were rejected because they lacked
postmarks should be counted.
Tuesday, November 12--Florida Supreme Court rules that
hand-recounted votes can be accepted for six more days.
Wednesday, November 22--Republican Vice Presidential
Candidate Dick Cheney is hospitalized for chest pains.
Miami-Dade County halts unfinished recount amid dispute
over standards for counting ballots.
Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thursday, November 23--Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore
appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount.
Friday, November, 24--U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear
Bush appeal.
Saturday, November 25--Bush drops lawsuit on counting
military absentee ballots, but files suits in five individual
counties.
Sunday, November 26--Florida Supreme Court sets 5pm
deadline for the Secretary of State's office to accept all
recounts.
Flordia certifies election results, declaring Bush the
winner by 537 of the nearly 6 million votes cast. Palm Beach
hand recounts are not included in the total.
Monday, November 27--Gore goes on national television to
defend his call for recounts and files suit in local court
contesting Florida results.
Bush team calls for private donations to finance White
House transition after the Clinton administration refuses to
release funds traditionally provided for the hand-over.
Tuesday, November 28--Gore calls for seven-day plan to
recount Florida votes to begin immediately. Leon County
Circuit Court Judge agrees to consider the recount but holds
off on hearing until December 2.
Gore, Bush lawyers deliver briefs to U.S. Supreme Court for
December 1 hearing.
Wednesday, November 29--Bush opens transition office in
McLean, VA. Gore vows to fight on until mid-December.
Thursday, November 30--Palm Beach ships ballots to
Tallahassee for December 2 hearing.
Gore appeals Leon County refusal to begin immediate recount
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday, December 1--U.S. Supreme Court Justices hears case.
Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore's appeal for expedited
recount Florida Supreme Court rules ``butterfly ballot''
constitutional.
Saturday, December 2--Leon County Circuit Court considers
recounts of one million ballots from Miami-Dade and Palm
Beach counties.
Monday, December 4--U.S. Supreme Court sets aside Florida
Supreme Court decision extending deadline for recounts,
sending it back to state court for further clarification of
its ruling.
Tuesday, December 5--The Florida Supreme Court schedules
oral arguments for Thursday for Gore's appeal of Monday's
ruling rejecting his challenge to the certification of Bush
as Florida's winner.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments on
Bush's effort to have the manual recounts declared
unconstitutional.
Wednesday, December 6--Fed appeals court in Atlanta refuses
to throw out recounted votes in three Florida counties.
Thursday, December 7--Gore lawyers argue for recounts
before Florida Supreme Court.
Trials on absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin counties
end.
Friday, December 8--Florida supreme court orders immediate
manual recounts of ballots from Miami-Dade and other
counties. The 4-3 vote gives Gore another 383 votes from
earlier partial recounts.
Circuit courts in Seminole and Martin counties rule that
absentee ballots did not violate the law though Republican
workers filled in missing ID numbers.
Saturday, December 9--U.S. Supreme Court agrees to Bush's
appeal for a halt to recount and schedules oral arguments
from both sides for Monday.
Monday, December 11--U.S. Supreme Court hears oral
arguments on Bush's appeal to halt the Florida vote recount.
Tuesday, December 12--Florida designates 25 electors
pledged to Bush for Electoral College vote.
Florida Supreme Court rejects Democrats' bid to throw out
absentee ballots they charge Republicans tampered with.
Wednesday, December 13--Bush declares victory, Gore
concedes.
Monday, December 18--Members of the Electoral College cast
their votes.
Saturday, January 20, 2001--Inauguration Day.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2001.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
Vice President of the United States and Senate President,
Washington, DC.
Dear Vice President Gore: We object to the 25 votes from
the State of Florida for George W. Bush for President and
Richard Cheney for Vice President. Notwithstanding the
certification by the Governor of the State of Florida, it is
the opinion of the undersigned that these 25 votes were not
regularly given in that the plurality of votes in the State
of Florida were in fact cast for Albert Gore, Jr. for
President and Joseph I. Lieberman for Vice President.
Further, certain violations of the Voter Rights Act of 1965
disenfranchised many voters prohibiting them from casting
their vote which impacted the electoral vote. Therefore, no
electoral vote of the State of Florida should be counted for
George W. Bush for President or for Richard Cheney for Vice
President.
Respectfully,
Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Carrie P. Meek.
Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Elijah E. Cummings.
____
Motion to Delay Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas moves that the House delay the
counting of the electoral votes until a quorum of both
chambers is present.
This is a solemn day. This is a solemn day because it is a
day when Congress will affirm the voice of the American
people and procedural statutes dictated by 3 USC 15, 16 & 17.
Therefore, any proceeding should not be done in the absence
of a quorum, especially, where more than 1/2 million people
have a different opinion of the electoral result that will be
affirmed today.
Therefore, all members of Congress should be allowed to go
on the record to be heard on the issue.
Sheila Jackson-Lee.
____
Congressional Black Caucus
of the United States Congress,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2001.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
Vice President of the United States and Senate President,
The Capital, Washington, DC.
Dear Vice President Gore: We object to the 25 votes from
the State of Florida for George W. Bush for President and
Richard
[[Page H53]]
Cheney for Vice President. Notwithstanding the certification
by the Governor of the State of Florida, it is the opinion of
the undersigned that these 25 votes were not regularly given
in that the plurality of votes in the State of Florida were
in fact cast for Albert Gore, Jr. for President and Joseph I.
Lieberman for Vice President. Therefore, no electoral vote of
Florida should be counted for George W. Bush for President or
for Richard Cheney for Vice President.
Respectfully,
Eddie Bernice Johnson; Alcee L. Hastings; Carrie P. Meek;
Corrine Brown; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Barbara Lee; Elijah
E. Cummings; Maxine Waters; Cynthia McKinney; Eva M.
Clayton.
____________________