| Author | Message | ||
     Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1760 Registered: 9-2004 |
Election Nullification 2: Speaker's Special Source Monday, 28 August 2006, 5:55 pm Opinion: Michael Collins Election Nullification II: Speaker of House had Special Source for Election “Certification ” California Assistant Secretary of State for Elections Tells House Clerk, it’s all good! By Michael Collins “Scoop” Independent Media Washington, DC What would you think if you heard that a Member of Congress was sworn in prior to the official certification of his hotly contested and controversial election? Would it matter to which political party the Member of Congress belonged? On August 25, 2006, "Scoop" revealed that there was something very wrong with Brian Bilbray’s swearing in as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Republican Bilbray allegedly defeated Francine Busby in a close and controversial special election in California’s 50th Congressional District. There were immediate cries of foul and demands for both an investigation and a recount. The problems were well publicized before the swearing in. Nevertheless, this sequence emerged: June 6 - unofficial results announced with Bilbray over Busby by a few thousand votes, followed by immediate public protests; June 13 - Speaker Hastert swears in Republican Bilbray on the House floor and Bilbray becomes a Member of Congress; and, June 30, 2006 - 17 days after Bilbray was sworn in as a member of the House, Mikel Haas, Registrar of San Diego County, officially completed the audit of election results required for certification, and officially certifies the election of Bilbray over Busby based on 163,931 total votes. The problem with the sequence is simple to spot. The swearing in of Bilbray occurred a full 17 days before the election became official as a result of the San Diego Registrar’s certification of results. The question raised in the previous article was, how could Speaker Hastert swear in Bilbray without notification that the election results were official? We have an answer. ADVERTISEMENT Speaker Hastert’s Special Source on “Certification” The swearing in ceremony for Republican Brian Bilbray, alleged winner of the California 50th District special election on June 6, 2006, was tucked in between actions to commend Canada for its renewed commitment to the war on terror. The Congressional Digest for that day contains a remarkable revelation; the source that the Speaker of the House used to justify the official induction of Bilbray. Oath of Office--Fiftieth Congressional District of California: Representative-elect Brian P. Bilbray presented himself in the well of the House and was administered the Oath of Office by the Speaker. Earlier the Clerk of the House transmitted a facsimile copy of the unofficial returns of the Special Election held on June 6, 2006 from Ms. Susan Lapsley, Assistant Secretary of State for Elections, California Secretary of State Office, indicating that the Honorable Brian P. Bilbray was elected Representative in Congress for the Fiftieth Congressional District of California. Here (statement only) or here (full record) Bilbray, it would now seem, was not sworn in without forethought, as though there were no issues involved. Somehow, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives received notification from Republican Bruce McPherson’s Assistant Secretary that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” This may come as news to the legal team fighting the recount in San Diego Superior Court. They have asserted that the recount is irrelevant because Federal authority supersedes state authority as a result of the June 13th swearing in of Bilbray. This logic was confirmed in a letter to San Diego Superior Court by Paul Vonivich , counsel for the House Committee on Administration. In that letter, he acknowledges the sequence of events and asserts that the swearing in makes moot any recount based on superior federal authority in congressional elections. Now we find out that that swearing in was based on the confirmation provided by a state government official. This strongly implies that the Congress actually recognized state authority to determine that the election outcome was official. A careful look at the statement in the Congressional Digest reveals some interesting assumptions and perhaps careful planning. The Speaker, Hastert, administered the oath based on word from California’s Assistant Secretary of State for Elections that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Several assumptions are embedded in this statement. First, Hastert knew that he needed an authority to justify the election as official. Second, he relied on state authority, Susan Lapsley specifically. Third, Hastert knew that there were only “unofficial results,” because those are clearly referenced yet he accepted the word of the Clerk that Lapsley had made the call that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Finally, Lapsley, who has no official status in San Diego County where the election was held, used “unofficial results” to convey to the court that Bilbray was elected. The “Scoop” August 25th article generated significant public outcry. There is now a campaign to challenge Speaker Hastert’s role in the San Diego election. This web page provides a rationale based on the premature swearing in and a recent Zogby Poll that showed 92% of Americans insist on the right view election results and raise questions. The site, Say No To Another Election Theft Before Fall Midterms: Recall House Speaker Hastert For Interfering With Local Elections, went up today and is reportedly receiving significant activity. The site quoted the initial “Scoop” article, noted the disregard for procedure and law, and linked the struggle against election fraud in the United States with protests in Mexico, the, site of a highly questionable presidential election. Conundrum According to the official record of the U.S. House of Representatives, we had a Speaker of the House swearing in a new Member of Congress from San Diego based on the word of an Assistant Secretary of State in Sacramento. That state of California official reportedly verified the San Diego election as official in a communication to which the “unofficial results” were attached. At the same time, we have a legal team representing the Registrar of San Diego County challenging a suit by citizens which seeks to open up the election records and perform a recount. The San Diego Registrar is refusing to conduct a recount based on the supremacy of federal authority, namely the House’s prerogative to swear in new members. The Registrar argues that the June 13 swearing shows federal supremacy. Now, from the actual record of the swearing in, we discover that the Speaker and Congress actually relied on a politically appointed California state official whose authority was used to determine that the election results were official. That state official has no authority for elections in San Diego County. The only consistent thread that runs through the entire affair, the swearing in of a candidate before an electron controversy was settled, is that each and every point in the decision making process, the decisions are dominated by Republicans or officials under the control of Republicans. The process is not flawed because of this particular partisan label, it’s flawed because it violates the expectations of a free people to have their elections taken seriously by those it elects, regardless of their party. ************* Copyright: This article may be used in whole or in part with attribution to the author and a link to “Scoop” Independent Media. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00338.htm #### Meanwhile in San Diego court room................ Court told votes don't have to be counted, certified Miriam Raftery Published: Monday August 28, 2006 Print This Email This San Diego, CA -- A motion to dismiss a congressional election challenge in California took on national implications last week when defense attorneys argued that no court has jurisdiction to intervene in an election after Congress has sworn in a member, RAW STORY has learned. Superior Court Judge Yuri Hofmann heard arguments Friday on a motion to dismiss the election challenge lawsuit filed by voters seeking a full hand recount in California’s 50th Congressional district. Paul Lehto, a nationally prominent election law attorney representing two voters who filed the suit, called the motion an “invitation to the Court to ratify a seizure of power” that amounts to “invading the sovereignty of a state.” Republican Brian Bilbray was sworn into Congress just seven days after a special election against Democrat Francine Busby – before all ballots were counted and a full 16 days before the election was certified. On Friday, attorneys David King and Jim Chapin (representing Bilbray and San Diego Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas) argued that a lawsuit brought by two voters should be dismissed because only Congress has the power to seat or unseat its members. (See previous RAW STORY coverage of this case.) Defense attorneys cited Article 1, section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that each House is responsible for the elections of its own members. Defense lawyers also noted that on June 13th, House members seated Bilbray by unanimous consent, and that Busby could have filed her own challenge in the House. Lehto countered that defendants were making a “power play” and noted that swearing Bilbray in as a member of Congress may constitute a record for speed. Normally, swearing in occurs 30-45 days after an election – and after certification by local election officials. The motion could determine whether the premature swearing in of a member is constitutional. “The specific intent of Congress on June 13 was to deprive this Court of jurisdiction,” Lehto testified. “If they can do that, they can do anything.” Lehto urged Judge Hofmann to uphold the Constitution as a whole, including provisions which state that the federal government is a government of limited power and that governments receive power from consent of the governed. He further noted that Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution does not prevent recounts and cited state election codes granting the State the power to regulate the time, place and manner of elections. “The State can control the count of votes and the recount of votes,” he added. Lehto agreed that the core responsibility lies with the House to remove a member of Congress. But he added that the Court has the power to determine if election fraud occurred, and to present any such evidence to Congress. Should Congress fail to act, Congress could suffer political consequences, he observed. “We have a pattern of evidence to hide the truth in elections,” Lehto argued, adding that it “rises to the level of…aiding and abetting fraud.” He cited evidence of voting machine “sleepovers” which gave “ample opportunity” for just one person to alter the entire election through electronic hacking. He further noted that Haas and Diebold “counted ballots in secrecy.” Lehto added, “We have been prevented and blindfolded from being able to determine if fraud occurred” and suggested that could be “grounds for a new election.” Defense attorneys stated that they were “disturbed by allegations of fraud” and noted that the voters filing a challenge had failed to pay for a recount. Lehto countered that plaintiffs filed an affidavit requesting a recount within five days after certification, as required by law, but that the Registrar demanded prohibitively high fees for the recount that were many times higher than fees charged in a neighboring county. Noting that the ballot had numerous state and local races as well as initiatives, defense attorneys questioned why only the Busby-Bilbray race had been singled out for scrutiny if voting machine accuracy was in question. Lehto responded that substantial issues specific to the Congressional race warranted the recount. Among those: * Some polls showed Busby up 7% just before the election * The outcome was close (Bilbray 49.57% , Busby 45.02% according to the Registrar’s certified result) * Some absentee ballots were lumped into mega-precincts that listed total ballot numbers that were “thousands of percentages” above the total number of voters * The Congressional race was the most important on the ballot, in the opinion of the voters who filed suit Lehto cited the U.S. Supreme Court case that awarded the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. In that case, the high court held that officials cannot “make up rules after an election” and halted a recount because Gore had only requested recounts in some districts. The House of Representatives' effort to seat Bilbray before certification amounted to a “fiat” that violates equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Lehto argued. “California voters are being treated differently than voters in other areas,” he noted, adding, “This is precisely the kind of equal protection argument that Bush v. Gore upheld.” Defendants have now filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against voters Lillian Ritt and Barbara Gail Jacobson, asking the court to order voters to pay legal fees in the case. Ritt has previously won an election challenge lawsuit that she filed against the Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Association, which was accused of burning ballots. That suit resulted in changes to the Association’s election procedures, recalled Ritt, who expressed outrage at the SLAPP suit filed in the CA-50 case. “A SLAPP motion was put in place to stop developers from suing people who went around and talked about them,” she told RAW STORY in an interview at the courthouse Friday. “It was to protect citizens. Now it’s being used against them.” Lehto viewed the tactic as an effort to intimidate his clients. “They do a power grab, terminate the election, and anyone who does challenge it, they hit them with a SLAPP lawsuit,” he told RAW STORY. Judy Hess, coordinator of the CA-50 election integrity group, offered an eyewitness account of the courtroom proceedings. “Paul’s argument was so eloquent that I found myself on the verge of mistiness at one point. My words tell you much of the argument— but I can’t do the presentation justice. He has set up the classic tensions, though, between different parts of the Constitution, and also the tensions between Federal and States’ rights….I knew I was watching a little slice of history…” A decision on the jurisdictional issue is expected on Tuesday, August 29. Updates on the case may be found at NoSleepovers (a site set up by CA-50, which is seeking donations to help cover the costs of filing the challenge) and at BradBlog. “Checks and balances and judicial review are what this case is all about--not blindfolding our eyes and withholding the truth,” Lehto concluded. “The public interest and integrity of our elections…and of the entire country are implicated here.” http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Hearing_in_California_on_whether_Congress_0828 .html | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1775 Registered: 9-2004 |
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3353 |
