[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 2 (Thursday, January 6, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S36-S37]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JOINT SESSION
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I would like to address a few subjects
this morning.
First, regarding the joint session of the House and the Senate that
will be meeting this afternoon, I have received a great number of calls
and expressions of interest and concern about that historic event--
where the two bodies meet in joint session to certify the tally of
votes from the electoral college.
Our role is a very limited one under both the Constitution and under
Federal law which was passed and has stood since 1887. The role of the
House and the Senate is not to adjudicate last November's Presidential
election. That should not be our role. Those who want us to insert
ourselves into that process are very well intentioned, but the role
they envision for us is, in my judgment, inappropriate and potentially
even dangerous. Our role today in this joint session of the Senate and
the House is one of witnessing the tally of the electoral college vote.
If there is an objection, it is based on very limited circumstances.
In fact, only once in the entire history of this legislation since
1886, only one time has there been a formal objection made, and that
was for one electoral vote cast by one elector who did not vote in the
way in which they pledged--in this case, the District of Columbia; not
a State, a district. That objection was rejected by the House and the
Senate in 1969.
There has never been in the history of the country an entire State
slate of electoral votes objected to or rejected by actions of both the
House and the Senate.
If an objection is made today signed by at least one Member of the
House and one Member of the Senate, under the law, under the
Constitution, the Senate separates from the House and meets for 2
hours. Our debate is limited by law to 2 hours. We each can speak up to
5 minutes and speak only once. Then on the basis of that debate we are
supposed to vote--each of us--on whether to accept that electoral slate
and the tally certified by the election authorities of the respective
States or reject it.
We are a partisan body. We are well intentioned. We are all honorable
men and women, as are our colleagues in the House. But we are elected
as Democrats or Republicans, and in one case an Independent. For us on
the basis of a 2-hour meeting and a 5-minute presentation by each of us
to vote on
[[Page S37]]
whether to accept or reject the will of the people of a particular
State is an enormously dangerous precedent. In my judgment, the
standard and the bar under which any objection must qualify for our
consideration, much less for our rejection, needs to be a very high
one. That is what our Federal law envisions. It says:
No electoral vote or votes from any State which have been
regularly given by electors whose appointment has been
lawfully certified from which but one return has been
received shall be rejected.
In other words, if the procedure that was followed by the election
authorities of the State is a proper one and if it is certified as
proper, if there is only one tally received from a State--in other
words, if there are not two different representations of that State's
electoral tally--then our function is to witness and acknowledge that
that function has been performed properly; it is not to say whether
that election was conducted properly. That review, if it is warranted,
is the proper role of the Judiciary, which is supposed to be
nonpartisan, which is supposed to be objective, impartial, fair, and
ultimately make the decision which, under the respective States and
Federal laws and the facts of all sides presented and carefully
considered over whatever necessary period of time and finally in that
very careful and sober deliberation, is determined to be the proper
judgment.
That is not our capability. That is not our role. Under the
restrictions of 2 hours today, that would be a travesty of justice. It
is a situation where it would be reversed if John Kerry had won this
election. If a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled
House had objected based on the information I have seen regarding the
electoral conditions in Ohio or any other State in the election, if
they had been rejected and those electoral college votes had thrown the
election into the House of Representatives where a partisan majority
voted on partisan lines to elect the other candidate as President of
the United States, there would be such a public outcry and loss of
confidence in the integrity of our electoral process that I fear we
would not recover as a nation--at least not for a long time. I would
say the same if the situation were reversed.
This is not about partisanship. This is about ensuring the integrity
of the legislative process. That is in its broad sense the proper role
and responsibility of Congress; that is, one where those who are
objecting to the conduct of this last election have solid ground and
where we properly should insert ourselves once again as we did after
the 2000 election when on a bipartisan basis in this body and the House
we passed election reform legislation.
We provided funding for State and local governments to conduct these
elections. And the intention was, I might add, under the Constitution
they can do so more effectively and more accurately. The principle is
everyone should have the right to vote, and that vote should be counted
accurately, which is fundamental to our democracy. If we fail at that,
if we are not perfect in carrying that out, we are not carrying out our
responsibility to protect the sanctity of this great democracy.
I take that responsibility very seriously. As a member of the Senate
Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction over that, I will ask the
chairman, Senator Lott, to convene hearings into the 2000 election. We
need to learn from that experience. A lot of focus and attention has
been directed on Ohio, as it appropriately should. It was a State that
ultimately in the final development of events on election night
determined the outcome. There were probably other States which had some
perhaps even greater imperfections in their voting procedures. That
should be used as the basis for further legislation as necessary to
safeguard this process so that, in fact and in perception, the American
people know they had the right to vote, the chance to vote, and their
vote was counted, and that the will of the majority, as reflected in
the Presidential election through the electoral college, was
faithfully, honestly, and accurately carried out by everyone
responsible for doing so.
How much time remains under the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to
complete my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________