Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 2 (Thursday, January 6, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 2 (Thursday, January 6, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S41-S56]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

OBJECTION TO COUNTING OF OHIO ELECTORAL VOTES

The VICE PRESIDENT. Pursuant to S. Con. Res. 1 and section 17 of
title 3, United States Code, when the two Houses withdraw from the
joint session to count the electoral vote for separate consideration of
an objection, a Senator may speak to the objection for 5 minutes and
not more than once. Debate shall not exceed 2 hours, after which the
Chair will put the question: Shall the objection be sustained?
The clerk will report the objection made in the joint session.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Ms. Tubbs Jones, a Representative from Ohio, and Mrs.
Boxer, a Senator from California, object to the counting of
electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they
were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly
given.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you so much.
For most of us in the House and in the Senate, we have spent our
lives fighting for what we believe in, always fighting to make our
Nation better. We may not agree from time to time, but we are always
fighting to make our Nation better. We have fought for social justice.
We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental
justice. We have fought for criminal justice. Now we must add a new
fight: the fight for electoral justice.
Every citizen of this the greatest country in the world who is
registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that
their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth in their community
their vote has as much weight as any Senator, any Congressperson, any
President, any Cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500
corporation. I am sure every one of my colleagues agrees with that
statement, that in the voting booth everyone is equal. So now it seems
to me that under our great Constitution of the United States of
America, which we swear allegiance to uphold, which guarantees the
right to vote, we must ask certain questions.
First, why did voters in Ohio wait hours in the rain to vote? Why
were voters at Kenyan College, for example, made to wait in line until
4 a.m. to vote? It was because there were only 2 machines for 1,300
voters when they needed 13.
Why did voters in poor and predominantly African- American
communities have disproportionately long waits?
Why in Franklin County did election officials use only 2,798 machines
when they needed 5,000? Why did they hold back 68 machines in
warehouses, 68 machines that were in working order? Why were 42 of
those machines in predominantly African-American communities?
Why in the Columbus area alone did an estimated 5,000 to 10,000
voters leave polling places out of frustration without having voted?
How many more never bothered to vote after they heard this because they
had to take care of their families or they had a job or they were sick
or their legs ached after waiting for hours?
Why is it when 638 people voted at a precinct in Franklin County, a
voting machine awarded 4,258 extra votes to George Bush? Thankfully,
they fixed it. Only 638 people had shown up, but George Bush got more
than 4,000 votes. How could that happen?
Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic
voting machines to downtown precincts while adding them in the suburbs?
This also led to long lines.
In Cleveland, why were there thousands of provisional ballots
disqualified when everyone knew that poll workers had given faulty
instructions to the voters?
Because of this and voting irregularities in so many other places, I
am joining today with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a 10-year
judge, an 8-year prosecutor, a 6-year Member of Congress, a woman
inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame. Folks, she has great
credibility, and she asked just one Senator to take a couple of

[[Page S42]]

hours. I hate inconveniencing my friends, but I believe it is worth a
couple of hours to shine some light on these issues.
We passed the Help America Vote Act, which was important to help
American voters, but then we did nothing.
Senators Graham, Clinton, and I introduced a bill to ensure that a
paper trail go along with electronic voting. We couldn't even get a
hearing in the last Congress. In the House, it is the same problem. We
need this kind of bill.
Let me simply say to my colleagues: I have great respect for all of
you. But I think it is key, whether it is Republicans or Democrats,
that we understand that the centerpiece of this country is democracy,
and the centerpiece of democracy is ensuring the right to vote.
I ask you, my friends from both sides of the aisle, when we get busy
working within the next few weeks, let us not turn away from the things
that happened in Ohio. Our people are dying all over the world. A lot
of them are from my State. For what reason? To bring democracy to the
far corners of the globe. Let us fix it here, and let us do it the
first thing out.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I find it almost impossible to believe
that I am actually standing on the floor of the Senate today engaged in
a debate over whether George Bush won Ohio in the 2004 Presidential
election. Clearly he did and did so by 118,000 votes.
Because I am limited under the rules to 5 minutes, I will not have
time to address all of the wild, incoherent, and completely
unsubstantiated charges that have been made about the 2004 Ohio
Presidential election. What might be a better way for me to explain the
absurdity of the suggestion that Ohio did not go for President Bush is
to quote from numerous editorials that have been written in Ohio
newspapers.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a newspaper that did not endorse either
President Bush or John Kerry, said in an editorial this past Tuesday
addressing those in Ohio and those from out of State still contesting
Ohio's results:

The election horse is dead. You can stop beating it now.
Not one ounce of political flesh remains on that carcass.
Ohio has counted and recounted: President George W. Bush
received 118,775 more votes than your man Sen. John Kerry.
The senator had the good grace and sense to acknowledge the
abundantly obvious, go home, and resume his life. You might
consider emulating his excellent example, because what you
are doing now--redoubling your effort in the face of a
settled outcome--will only drive you further toward the
political fringe. And that long grass already is tickling
your knees.
The 176 Democrats who sit on Ohio's 88 county election
boards pondered their jurisdictions' results, accepted their
subordinates' good work, and are turning their energies
toward the future. Are they all dupes in some Machiavellian
Republican scheme? Or do they simply have a firmer grasp of
reality than that displayed by the two of you and a handful
of unrelenting zealots still ranting in the January rain,
eight weeks after the November voting?''

The headline for the Akron Beacon Journal's editorial from December
24, 2004 was:

We wish John Kerry would have won Ohio. He didn't.

The piece went on to say:

The allegations being thrown around are of the flimsiest
nature . . . Not one shred of evidence has been presented to
show that Ohio's strictly bipartisan system of running
elections was manipulated.

The Columbus Dispatch, in an editorial dated December 12, 2004, said:

It is terribly unfortunate that this body is meeting under these
circumstances. I urge my colleagues to act unanimously in seating
Ohio's electors.
I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of the above-mentioned
articles printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

(From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Jan. 4, 2005)

Please, let it go. Election was 2 months ago; inauguration is in 2
weeks; Jackson and Tubbs Jones should get on to something useful.''

Memo to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and the Rev. Jesse
Jackson: The election horse is dead. You can stop beating it
now.
Not an ounce of political flesh remains on that carcass.
Ohio has counted and recounted: President George W. Bush
received 118,775 more votes than your man, Sen. John Kerry.
The senator had the good grace and sense to acknowledge the
abundantly obvious, go home and resume his life. You might
consider emulating his excellent example, because what you
are doing now--redoubling your effort in the face of a
settled outcome--will only drive you further toward the
political fringe. And that long grass already is tickling
your knees.
The 176 Democrats who sit on Ohio's 88 county election
boards pondered their jurisdictions' results, accepted their
subordinates' good work, and are turning their energies
toward the future. Are they all dupes in some Machiavellian
Republican scheme? Or do they simply have a firmer grasp of
reality than that displayed by the two of you and a handful
of unrelenting zealots still ranting in the January rain,
eight weeks after the November voting?
Yes, long lines built voter frustration. Yes, some
electronic machines malfunctioned. Yes, boards rejected more
provisional ballots than usual. But such things happen when
hundreds of thousands of new voters join the process and new
technology debuts under fire. Your doubts notwithstanding,
numerous nonpartisan election experts say Ohio did an above-
average job.
Americans treasure the right to be loudly mistaken--a right
you now freely exercise. But for two national figures whose
constituencies are among the poorest of the poor, it seems an
embarrassing waste of energies sorely needed elsewhere. Fold
your mildewed tents, collect your soggy cardboard and focus
on the poverty, single-parenthood and dropout rates that have
so impoverished those in whose names you protest too much.
Good causes await your serious advocacy. And what you are
doing now isn't serious.
____

[From the Akron Beacon Journal, Dec. 24, 2004]

Still Chasing Conspiracies; We Wish John Kerry Would Have Won Ohio. He
Didn't

The $1.5 million recount of presidential votes in Ohio is
almost finished. With all counties except Lucas reporting,
the results haven't shifted by more than a few hundred votes
for either candidate. George W. Bush's win in Ohio, which
gave him a majority of Electoral College votes, is safe.
Still, die-hards are continuing to question. A challenge
filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by a group backed by the Rev.
Jesse Jackson alleges fraud, computer hacking and post-
election vote-switching, among other things. John Conyers of
Michigan, the highest-ranking Democratic member of the House
Judiciary Committee, wants an FBI investigation. A lawyer
representing Sen. John Kerry's campaign now says some parts
of the recount in Cuyahoga County should be counted again.
The allegations being thrown around are of the flimsiest
nature. Jackson and Conyers are, for example, seeking exit
polling data to compare with the official voting results. To
what end? Is the election to be handed to Kerry based on a
sampling of voters' opinions on Election Day, or the actual
results?
Conyers based his request for an FBI investigation, in
part, on the fact that a vote-tabulating computer had
undergone routine maintenance before the recount in Hocking
County. A review of the procedure by the election board and
computer technicians showed the maintenance hadn't altered a
thing.
Not one shred of evidence has been presented to show that
Ohio's strictly bipartisan system of running elections was
manipulated. There isn't any. What happened on Election Day,
the long lines, tens of thousands of punch-card ballots that
failed to record a vote, confusion over provisional voting
and proper registration, can and should be addressed by J.
Kenneth Blackwell, the secretary of state, and local election
boards.

[[Page S43]]

The voters would be better served if those backing the
challenges backed off, concentrating on election reforms
instead of electoral futility.
____

[From the Dayton Daily News, Dec. 20, 2004]

Did Votes Vanish in Miami Valley?

Specific complaints about the Ohio vote count keep getting
aired--especially on the Internet--and keep getting laid to
rest, but then just keep on getting cited by some diehard
Democrats.
The supposed outrage in Republican Warren County? There the
authorities closed off the vote-counting site on election
night. Turns out, however, the local Democratic authorities
were there, inside the building, and were fine with what went
down, seeing no shenanigans.
The fact that many ballots in Montgomery County showed no
vote for president? Turns out there was an electrical
malfunction, and the counts have been changed, with
Republicans benefiting.
Votes showing up late in the process in Miami County? Turns
out the original state reports were wrong.
Similar phenomena in other parts of the state have
similarly turned out not to amount to much.
Yet 12 Democrats on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee have
posed questions about these alleged irregularities to
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. The strategy seems
to be throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.
Several Miami Valley issues are at the center of this
national squabble.
Some committee questions are just nonsense: How can the
secretary of state explain that Sen. John Kerry did no better
in Warren County than Al Gore did in 2000, even though Sen.
Kerry spent more money and Ralph Nader wasn't on the ballot
this time? Please. This is nothing. Republicans are leaving
central urban counties for places like Warren, making the
places they leave bluer and the new places redder.
Perhaps the most intriguing question is the one about the
race for chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Democratic challenger C. Ellen Connally ran worse than Sen.
John Kerry statewide, by about 3 percentage points. But in
some counties in Southwest Ohio--Miami, Darke, Butler,
Claremont, Brown--she ran ahead of him. Why?
Is it possible, as has been charged, that some 60,000 Kerry
votes somehow disappeared in those counties?
Consider: Party labels do not appear on the ballots for
judicial candidates. So, in these very Republican counties,
one would not expect Judge Connally to have the kind of
problem that Sen. Kerry had.
But why did Judge Connally run behind Sen. Kerry statewide
if she ran ahead of him in these counties? Probably because
the Moyer campaign--the only well-funded one--focused its
commercials and mailings someplace other than small,
Republican counties.
To ask the secretary of state to explain these things is
absurd. Any response he offers will be treated by the
Democrats on the House committee as partisan. Nonpartisan
think tanks could do this work more credibly and with more
expertise.
The partisan Democrats know that. They're just playing
games.
____

[From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 15, 2004]

Move On Now; The Zealots Who Refuse To Accept Ohio's Vote Count Risk
Undermining Confidence in the System Itself

Most Americans, including the vast majority of those who
supported John Kerry for president, have grasped the most
basic reality of Election Day 2004:
George W. Bush was re-elected. He won roughly 60.7 million
votes and carried 31 states with 286 electoral votes. Ohio's
20 Electoral College members formally cast ballots for the
president Monday in the Statehouse.
Unfortunately, there is a small, but very vocal, group of
Americans who refuse to accept this reality. They argue that
what appear to be routine technical glitches and human errors
were in fact an elaborate conspiracy to skew the election
results. They claim that long lines at a few polling places,
the rather unsurprising result of high voter interest, were
evidence of a systematic campaign to discourage
participation. In short, having failed to get the outcome
they wanted at the polls, they have decided to mount an
irresponsible campaign aimed at undermining public confidence
in the electoral system itself.
Ohio, arguably the most intensive battleground for Bush and
Kerry, has been the No. 1 target of these diehards.
Since Election Day, they have seized on isolated problems
in a relative handful of this state's 11,366 precincts as
proof of greater ills or even criminal activity.
One speaker in Columbus over the weekend likened Ohio to
Ukraine. The Rev. Jesse Jackson has complained of widespread
``fraud and stealing.''
The Green and Libertarian parties, whose presidential
candidates got a combined three-tenths of one percent of the
vote in Ohio on Nov. 2, have demanded a recount of the
state's 5.7 million ballots. That will cost taxpayers about
$1.4 million. A coalition of critics, led by a former Ohio
organizer for Ross Perot, has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to
overturn the presidential election, as well as the outcome in
the race for chief justice. The Kerry campaign, reflecting
its leader's maddening desire to have everything both ways,
has said it does not expect a recount to change anything--yet
has also issued a list of things it wants local elections
officials to double-check.
Obviously, there were problems on Election Day. There
always are. Elections are run by imperfect humans. Many
individual polling places are in the hands of civic-minded
neighbors with a few hours of training. Machines malfunction.
Voters mess up ballots.
But Ohio has already done its usual intensive post-election
audit and reconciliation, a process designed to spot
mistakes. That canvass resulted in Bush's unofficial 136,000-
vote margin being reduced to the 119,000-vote edge that
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certified last week.
Ohio's bipartisan elections system makes the kind of GOP
conspiracy that some allege all but impossible to execute.
Every county board of elections consists of two Democrats and
two Republicans. So when Jackson and other national Democrats
question Ohio's outcome, they demean their own allies.
William Anthony Jr., the African-American who chairs both the
Franklin County Democratic Party and its elections board, has
been personally stung by Jackson's slander: ``Why would I sit
there and disenfranchise my own community?'' he asks.
The recount will go forward because by law it must; history
suggests few votes will change. But it is time to focus on
how to make future elections more efficient.
Clearly it would help if groups that register new voters
did not deliver thousands of applications at the last minute.
Ohio also needs an early voting system to relieve at least
some of the pressure on Election Day. And rather than
retreating from electronic voting machines, the state needs
to find a secure system and back it up with a paper record.
Common-sense solutions can make a difference. Endless sour
grapes will not.
____

[From the Columbus Dispatch, December 12, 2004]

Sound and Fury; Election-Conspiracy Theorists Do Nothing To Improve
Voting

On Monday, the 20 Ohio members of the Electoral College
will cast their votes to elect the next president of the
United States. When those votes are added to those from
electors in the other 49 states, George W. Bush's re election
will be official.
But that won't stop the conspiracy theorists who claim that
Bush stole his victory. Though they are small in number,
these naysayers are loud and repetitious. So the truth bears
repeating, too: Bush won because more Ohioans voted for him
than for Sen. John Kerry.
Kerry understands that Bush legitimately won the election,
which is why he conceded on Nov. 3. Those who claim that
Ohio's vote was rigged have produced nothing that approaches
credible evidence. Nor have they explained how a conspiracy
could be carried out successfully in a decentralized system
involving 88 separate, bipartisan county election boards.
Such a conspiracy would have to involve scores, if not
hundreds, of Democratic election-board members actively
working against their own party and presidential candidate.
The idea that Democratic election officials disenfranchised
voters in minority and Democratic precincts offends William
A. Anthony Jr., chairman of the Franklin County Democratic
Party and of the Franklin County Election Board, who was at
the center of planning for the Nov. 2 election.
He was particularly incensed after the Rev. Jesse Jackson
recently repeated the allegations and called for an
investigation of the Ohio election.
``I am a black man,'' Anthony said. ``Why would I sit there
and disenfranchise voters in my own community? I feel like
they're accusing me of suppressing the black vote. I've
fought my whole life for people's right to vote.''
Anthony's indignation is justified.
The major problem with the Nov. 2 election was the long
lines at many polling places. But these were the result of
high turnout, not conspiracy. Republican and Democratic
voters alike were inconvenienced. In many precincts, the
problem was exacerbated by a long ballot containing many tax
and bond issues in addition to candidate choices.
Ohio is in the midst of an effort to replace election
machinery throughout the state. Secretary of State J. Kenneth
Blackwell made a good-faith effort to have the new equipment
in place in time for the Nov. 2 election, but he was stymied
by political disputes over the security and verifiability of
the machines. County election officials wisely are waiting
until this issue is sorted out before moving ahead with
purchases of new machines.
But before that, Ohio lawmakers can reduce lines by
rewriting election laws to allow voters to cast absentee
ballots instead of visiting polling places.
Much work remains to be done to improve the state's voting
system. The conspiracy theorists are contributing nothing to
the effort but useless noise.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I advise Members on the minority side if
they

[[Page S44]]

want to speak on this issue, I have been informed that when the
speeches end there will be a rollcall vote. If people are waiting to
come here an hour from now, they may not get the chance to speak.
Members who want to speak should come here now. I have been informed on
the majority side there may not be another speaker or, if so, maybe
only one other speaker.
For my side, I repeat, as I understand the rules, they should be here
to speak for the 5 minutes when the time comes. That time is now.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect and personal
regard for my friend from the State of California. It is not often I
find myself rising in disagreement, but I emphatically disagree and say
respectfully that I believe those involved, citizens from around the
country, with all their good intentions, are seriously misguided and
are leading us into a very unfortunate precedent that was not in any
way contemplated by the Constitution, by the law, or by historical
precedent.
Obviously, the law, which was established in 1887, did not envision
that our role would be to adjudicate in any State the results of an
election for President. If it were the intent, it clearly would not
have designed this kind of forum where an objection is raised, we each
express our opinion for up to 5 minutes, and then vote on a whole array
of facts and allegations and statements and contradictions that we
could not possibly in this setting determine fairly and accurately.
If we were to do so, if we were to hypothetically object on an
inevitably partisan basis to the actions taken by the electorate of a
certain State, certified by the election officers of that State and
then brought to us today, if we were to overturn that process and in
this instance throw the election into the House of Representatives, the
damage it would do to our democracy, to the integrity of our system,
would be incalculable. If it were to result hypothetically in an
alteration of the publicly expressed electoral will in an election for
President, the entire credibility of our system would possibly be
destroyed.
I am not the complete authority, but as I have read some of the
assertions made about the conduct of the election in Ohio, I find
serious imperfections. If we shed that spotlight on most States in this
country, including my own State of Minnesota, we would find other
imperfections.
Democracy is not a perfect process, but it is a process that we have
a responsibility, not in hindsight but with foresight, to try to
structure and to continue to perfect so it is as close to perfect as is
humanly possible. I share entirely the concerns expressed by my
colleague from California and others who said despite our best
efforts--and I was part of that collaborative effort in this body and
under the Rules Committee in the last couple of years--we made some
progress but we still fell short.
I respectfully ask the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Lott,
who is here today, if he would be willing to convene hearings in the
very near future and look not just at Ohio but at the experience from
this election and how it can instruct us to improve that process for
the future.
The Senator from California is absolutely right; every American
should know he or she has a right to vote, that they can vote
expeditiously, that their vote will be counted and it will be tabulated
accurately, whether under Republican or Democratic election officials,
whether it is for President from one party or another.
Whether I agree or disagree with the judgment of the American people,
I respect and agree more than anything else with that process and the
integrity of the process that produces whatever result they determine.
It is that which we must guard today. I regret we are in a position of
possibly compromising it. It would be a fatal mistake to overturn it in
the way suggested.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

What Went Wrong in Ohio

Executive Summary

Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on
the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Democratic staff to
conduct an investigation into irregularities reported in the
Ohio presidential election and to prepare a Status Report
concerning the same prior to the Joint Meeting of Congress
scheduled for January 6, 2005, to receive and consider the
votes of the electoral college for president. The following
Report includes a brief chronology of the events; summarizes
the relevant background law; provides detailed findings
(including factual findings and legal analysis); and
describes various recommendations for acting on this Report
going forward.
We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in
the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a
significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these
irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes
and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it
can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004,
were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone
federal requirements and constitutional standards.
This report therefore, makes three recommendations: (1)
consistent with the requirements of the United States
Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by
Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements,
there are ample

[[Page S45]]

grounds for challenging the electors from the State of Ohio;
(2) Congress should engage in further hearings into the
widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we believe the
problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a
joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate
and report back to the Members, and (3) Congress needs to
enact election reform to restore our people's trust in our
democracy. These changes should include putting in place more
specific federal protections for federal elections,
particularly in the areas of audit capability for electronic
voting machines and casting and counting of provisional
ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state
election laws.
With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that
there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and
anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were
caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much
of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the
co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.
First, in the run up to election day, the following actions
by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials
disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens,
predominantly minority and Democratic voters:
The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented
long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of
thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters.
This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post
reported that in Franklin County, ``27 of the 30 wards with
the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for
Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven
wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for
Kerry.'' Among other things, the conscious failure to provide
sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code
which requires the Boards of Elections to ``provide adequate
facilities at each polling place for conducting the
election.''
Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots
resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds,
of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and
Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from
past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no
evidence that a broader construction would have led to any
significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do
so in other states.
Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter
registration applications based on paper weight may have
resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in
time for the 2004 election.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in
preelection ``caging'' tactics, selectively targeting 35,000
predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative
impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit found these
activities to be illegal and in direct violation of consent
decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority
voters for poll challenges.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands
of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and
Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of
legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became
discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions
were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican
officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican
Party, admitted the challenges ``can't help but create chaos,
longer lines and frustration.''
Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested
absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis
from being able to receive provisional ballots likely
disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr.
Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.
Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained
anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands
of votes that have yet to be accounted for:
There were widespread instances of intimidation and
misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the
Civil Rights Act of 1968. Equal Protection, Due Process and
the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to
institute a single investigation into these many serious
allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty
under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.
We learned of improper purging and other registration
errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens
of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter
Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone
over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a
result of official registration errors.
There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast
for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be
inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two
precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of
over 25% each--accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood
in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for
president.
There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities
in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning
county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown
number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County
locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI
warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI
states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting
records of Perry county show significantly more votes than
voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than
voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one
ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded
Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received
more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential
candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker
error may have led to little known third party candidates
receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had
ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas;
(vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and
highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the
precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes
were recorded for President Bush.
Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous
irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting
and completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of
voters and call the entire recount procedure into question
(as of this date the recount is still not complete):
Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent
standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in
the loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In
Cuyahoga County alone, the lack of guidance and the ultimate
narrow and arbitrary review standards significantly
contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional
ballots were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the
state.
Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the
recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of
both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses.
We found innumerable irregularities in the recount in
violation of Ohio law, including (i) counties which did not
randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) counties which did
not conduct a full hand count after the 3% hand and machine
counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for
irregular marking of ballots and failed to secure and store
ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented
witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects
of the recount.
The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted
that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in
numerous counties to provide ``cheat sheets'' to those
counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election
officials how many votes they should find for each candidate,
and how many over and under votes they should calculate to
match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing
a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.

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.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the most
fundamental right in our democracy, the right to vote. Every election
day, millions of people in America from different social, economic, and
ethnic backgrounds converge on polling stations to cast their ballots.
And as they leave the polling booths, they emerge, one by one, as
equals.
They are equals because the power of our Constitution resides with
the people who delegate power to the Government. Our Constitution
guarantees the right of every American to be heard equally about whom
they want to lead their Government. We, as their elected leaders, have
a responsibility to ensure that those constitutional freedoms are
honored and protected.
We have heard from some voters in Ohio and across the country about
the election in November. They feel that their voices were not heard.
Thousands of voters waited in line for up to 10 hours to cast their
ballots. Some waited until 4 in the morning, and some waited for hours
in the rain. Many voters with job, family, and other responsibilities
simply could not wait any longer, and they left without voting. It is
unreasonable to expect voters to wait 10 hours to exercise their
constitutional right to vote.
Some soldiers and other Americans living overseas believe their
ballots

[[Page S46]]

were not counted. Without question, every legal ballot should count,
whether it is cast overseas or here in the United States.

Many precincts across the country continue to use outdated punch-card
ballots and decades-old voting machines that are more prone to error or
simply do not work properly. That is disturbing enough--machines from
the 1950s being used in 2004--but even more disturbing is that urban
areas are disproportionately affected. More urban areas do not have the
modern voting machines and equipment that is available in other areas
of the country. This disparity affects voting for a large number of
minorities, and that is unacceptable.
Even those precincts with electronic voting machines had problems.
Some machines malfunctioned, causing votes to be counted more than once
or not at all. Anyone who has used a computer at home or at work knows
that even saved data can be lost. Yet most electronic voting machines
do not have a paper record to back up the system. It could be as simple
as a paper receipt like the one you get when you withdraw money from an
ATM machine.
In Nevada, electronic voting machines have a paper trail, and we need
it for all electronic voting machines. We must ensure the integrity of
our voting process.
Many voters felt intimidated at the polls. When they went to vote,
so-called election observers demanded that they provide more than the
required form of identification. Others read flyers that directed them
to the wrong polling places.
These are real people with real concerns, and we need to listen to
them. Our Constitution requires that we listen to them. As elected
leaders of these people and all of those in our States who have
delegated to us the power to represent them, we have an obligation to
listen.
After voters experienced similar problems in the last election, we
addressed many of those issues. Congress passed, and I supported, the
Help America Vote Act, which required the use of provisional ballots
for voters who went to the wrong location so ballots would be sealed
and counted later in the proper precinct, and each State received
funding to update their voting systems.
But in Ohio, the provisional ballot was rendered virtually worthless
in the November 2004 election. Ohio's Secretary of State ruled that
provisional ballots were valid only if they were cast in the proper
precinct.
So today we talk about the problem, but I think we also need to talk
about the solution. Voting is fundamental to our democracy. The process
should be fair, honest, and easy.
I do not support holding up the results of our November election to
address the concerns many voters have raised about the process because
I believe we need to move on with the business of the country. But I do
support the GAO investigation into these concerns. When we find out
what the GAO has to say, we have an obligation to address the problems
they uncover.
I do support true election reform that will create a 21st century
voting system that we can all be proud of.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I commend and thank our friend from
California, Senator Boxer, for giving us this opportunity to address
the Senate on this issue.
On November 3, John Kerry conceded the 2004 Presidential election to
George Bush. While we do not question the outcome, many of us remain
deeply concerned that for the second time in a row, in a closely
contested election, there were so many complaints about the ability of
voters to cast their votes and have them counted fairly.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. Every Member
of Congress has a duty to protect and uphold that right. When that
right is threatened, Congress must act to protect it. Clearly, the
legislation we enacted to do so after the 2000 election was not
adequate for the 2004 election.
Forty years ago this year, after the Selma-Montgomery march, many of
us in the Senate and House worked hard to pass the landmark Voting
Rights Act of 1965, to guarantee that racism and its bitter legacy do
not close the polls to any citizen.
After the 2000 election, we passed the Help America Vote Act in an
effort to correct the serious problems that undermined the right to
vote in that election.
Unfortunately, last November, we learned that we still have work to
do. As in 2000, the votes of many who wanted to vote were not, in fact,
counted. The reasons are many and varied. Some voters gave up in the
face of endless lines and waits of many hours at polling places unable
to handle the large turnout of voters. In other cases, voting was
frustrated by broken or ancient voting machinery, by confusion over
applicable rules for voting precincts, or because States decided that
certain votes did not comply with arbitrary and inflexible State or
local procedures. We saw all those problems in Ohio. It is far from
clear the extent to which these serious problems were the result of
intended manipulation or widespread incompetence, but either way, the
voting process did not live up to the standards worthy of our
democracy.
Today's debate is an opportunity for all of us to admit that the 2004
election was flawed and to pledge action in this new Congress to fix
the festering problems once and for all.
Citizens must have faith that they will be able to cast their votes
efficiently and with complete confidence that their votes will be
fairly and accurately counted. We cannot go through another election
wondering whether a patchwork of unequal and outdated procedures--
whether by accident or design--have yet again denied so many of our
fellow citizens the right to vote.
I commend the many thousands of citizens in Massachusetts and other
States who insisted that treating today's electoral vote count in
Congress as a meaningless ritual would be an insult to our democracy
unless we register our own protest against the obviously flawed voting
process that took place in so many of our States. We are hopeful that
this major issue that goes to the heart of our democracy is now firmly
implanted on the agenda for effective action by this Congress.
Few things are more important to the Nation and to each of us, both
Republican and Democrat, than a genuine guarantee that the people's
will is heard through the ballot. No democracy worth the name can allow
such a flawed election process to take place again.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, the Congress gathers to exercise the
role laid out by the Framers in the Constitution of the United States.
The past two national elections have been surrounded in controversy,
not just controversy over issues and ideas--which is important and
healthy in a democratic system of government--but also controversy over
the mechanics of the election and the counting of the votes.
The 2000 election left citizens across this country with a belief
that not every vote was fairly counted. In response, Congress passed a
much-needed reform legislation. States worked to modernize their
equipment and procedures. We had high hopes that the 2004 election--
under much closer scrutiny than the election of 2000--would provide the
public with confidence that everyone who registered would be able to
vote, and that every vote cast would be counted accurately.
Yet, despite the legislation and the more than $2 billion dedicated
to fixing the election problems, the election of 2004 was marred with
reports of irregularities and, as a result, there is a significant
group of our citizenry that seriously questions the results of the
vote, and particularly the vote in Ohio.
There are several groups and organizations that are investigating the
reported irregularities in the Ohio election. That is important work
and it should and will continue. When the investigations conclude,
should there be solid evidence of criminal activity, those responsible
should be prosecuted, no matter how high that responsibility may reach.
But the Senate should not prejudge the results of those investigations.
I applaud the efforts of the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and
the Congressional Black Caucus to defend the integrity of the electoral
process. But the question before us today is

[[Page S47]]

whether we uphold the objection to the certification of Ohio's electors
in the count of the electoral vote. The Senate must vote, based on the
information available to us at this moment, and absent the clear
conclusions of the ongoing investigations into reported irregularities
in Ohio, I shall vote to allow the electoral count to proceed.
In this session of Congress, I hope that we can take the lessons
learned from November and continue to improve the integrity of
elections and encourage greater faith in the results. The legitimacy of
our government rests upon the confidence of the people. We, in
Congress, must get serious about crafting legislation aimed at
restoring confidence in the most fundamental characteristic of a
representative democracy, the Constitutional right and duty to vote.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, although there were voting irregularities
in Ohio, I will not vote in support of the objection. I do respect the
result of the recent Presidential election, but I do not respect the
process. Several thousand voters believe they were discouraged or even
prevented from voting, and several thousand who did vote believe that
their votes were not correctly reported. The inequitable allocation of
voting machines, the lack of instruction for the review of provisional
ballots, and the questionable activities surrounding the recount of the
electronic ballots call into question the final results in Ohio.
However, I am unconvinced that it would have made a difference in the
final outcome of this Presidential election.
I had hoped that we would not have the electoral college votes called
into question again. After the 2000 Presidential election, we worked
together to pass election reform legislation, the Help America Vote
Act. That legislation set Federal requirements for provisional ballots
and for voter information, registration, and identification.
Unfortunately, that legislation has not yet been fully implemented and
does not go far enough.
I would like to work with my colleagues craft legislation to ensure
that all of our citizens are encouraged to vote and participate in our
democratic process. Our citizens must believe their vote will count. At
a time when we are risking lives of our service men and women to spread
democracy throughout the world, we cannot ignore the threats to the
democratic process here at home. I do not relish the vote I am forced
to cast today, but I as I do, I look forward to being able to cast
future votes on Federal election reform to ensure that we are not in
this position again.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, serious allegations have been raised about
voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election. I
agree with many of my colleagues that these allegations must be
investigated to the fullest extent possible because every eligible
citizen in this nation must have an equal opportunity to exercise the
constitutional right to cast a vote in Federal elections. That said, I
do not believe there is anything to be gained by sustaining the
objection to the ballot certification with regard to the state of Ohio.
Senator John Kerry has already conceded the election and there are no
pending investigations that will result in sufficient votes being
changed so as to alter the outcome of this election.
However, the last two elections have revealed a glaring need for us
to rethink how we conduct elections in our Nation. With more and more
voters needing to cast their ballots on Election Day, we need to build
on the movement which already exists to make it easier for Americans to
cast their ballots by providing alternatives to voting on just one
election day. Twenty-six states, including my own state of Wisconsin,
now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee ballot. Twenty
three states permit in-person early voting at election offices or at
other satellite locations. The state of Oregon now conducts statewide
elections completely by mail. These innovations are critical if we are
to conduct fair elections for it has become unreasonable to expect that
a nation of 294 million people can line up at the same time and cast
their ballots at the same time. And if we continue to try to do so, we
will encounter even more reports of broken machines and long lines in
the rain and registration errors that create barriers to voting.
That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our federal
election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November
to the first weekend in November. Holding our federal elections on a
weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots
and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to
undermine our elections. I look forward to introducing legislation to
this end in the 109th Congress and I urge my colleagues to join me in
this effort.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we meet in historic session today. The
twelfth amendment to the Constitution sets forth the requirements for
casting electoral votes and counting those votes in Congress. The
electors are required to meet, cast and certify their ballots and
transmit them to the Vice President in his capacity as President of the
Senate.
With the exception of objections to the electoral votes from the
State of Florida in the 2000 election, objections to an entire slate of
votes from a State have been rare. But we have had one today, which
gives us the opportunity to discuss and debate a very important issue
for our country and for the citizens of my State--the issue of whether
we have ensured that every vote is counted.
I will vote to uphold the outcome of this most recent election.
However, I think we have more work to do in the area of election
reform, and I think the discussion we are having today is appropriate
and overdue.
In 2001, I supported the passage of the Equal Protection of Voting
Rights Act. That law was designed to protect voting rights and ensure
the integrity of the electoral system in our nation. I did so because I
feel that making certain that each citizen's vote is counted and
promoting public trust and confidence in our election process is
crucial.
The job is far from over. We may need to have additional hearings and
we may need to take additional legislative action. There have been
troubling reports from this most recent election.
Representative John Conyers and the minority staff of the House
Judiciary Committee have conducted their own hearings and
investigations of instances of voter disenfranchisement, flawed or
corrupted voting machinery, and inappropriate procedures for counting
and recounting votes in Ohio. They have produced a compelling report
itemizing and analyzing the irregularities.
A 2-hour debate on the matter, when people across the country waited
in 4, 6 and 12-hour lines to vote all over this country in November, is
the least we can do.
The debate we are having focuses attention on legitimate concerns
that have been raised regarding the Ohio vote and count, and on broader
concerns about America's inconsistent and sometimes flawed election
processes which vary so radically from State to State that genuine
equal protection concerns arise.
I will certify the election results, because I don't think we should
sacrifice the greater good of the continuity of Government at this
time. We need to govern. But, what we should be doing is using this
debate to get this Congress, and this country, talking about the steps
that must be taken to ensure that American elections provide a true
representation of the people's will.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while I was pleased at the large number of
Americans who turned out to vote in last year's Presidential election,
I am deeply concerned about the many credible allegations of voting
irregularities that surfaced in the weeks following the election.
I cannot, however, support an objection to the certification of
Ohio's electoral votes. Although I believe this debate is worthwhile, I
am not persuaded that the alleged fraud was sufficient to change the
outcome of either the Electoral College or the popular vote. Senator
Kerry conceded the election more than 2 months ago, and he does not
support a challenge. Moreover, the practical effect of discounting
Ohio's electoral votes would simply be to allow the election to be
decided by the House of Representatives.
In the months leading up to Election Day, I joined with Senator
Kennedy in

[[Page S48]]

writing with great frequency to Attorney General Ashcroft about our
concerns about voter suppression and possible partisan activity by the
Department of Justice. It is with dismay, then, that I have learned
about the secret counting of votes in Warren County, OH, allegedly
prompted by an FBI terrorism warning that the FBI denied making. I have
read also of the nearly 4,000 votes President Bush was mistakenly
awarded in a Franklin County precinct with only 800 voters. Although
this mistake was corrected, such a malfunction suggests the possibility
that other problems with the vote count may have been missed.

Finally, I would point to the shocking misdistribution of voting
machines in Ohio. Voters from minority and urban communities frequently
waited in line for four to five hours to cast their votes, while
suburban voters faced far more manageable waiting times.
We cannot know the effect this may have had on vote totals, but we
can and should work with State and local officials to prevent this from
happening in future Presidential and other Federal elections.
I commend Representative Conyers and many of his Democratic
colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee for their tireless pursuit
of a goal that all of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--should
desire: a free and fair election in which every vote counts.
I look forward to the results of the Government Accountability
Office's investigation of election irregularities called for by
Representative Conyers.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I accept the decision voters made on
November 2 to elect George W. Bush as the President of the United
States. I do not come to the floor today to challenge the outcome of
the election. However, I do have concerns about the process. I believe
there are some valid issues raised with the Ohio electoral votes
regarding the legitimacy of our Nation's voting procedures, and I take
these issues very seriously. In this modern, computerized age and in
our magnificent, democratic country, there is absolutely no excuse for
database errors, lack of polling-place education and training,
equipment malfunctions, or voter disenfranchisement.
I supported the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, and have consistently
supported adequately funding this law so that States can achieve its
requirements and improve voting procedures to ensure every valid vote
is counted. In addition, I helped introduce the Restore Elector
Confidence in Our Representative Democracy, RECORD, Act, S. 2313, last
year. This act contains a provision to strengthen security measures for
electronic voting devices to prevent outside tampering and requires a
paper printout of votes cast at electronic voting machines.
The right to vote freely and without intimidation is the foundation
of democracy and we must do all we can to ensure every vote is counted
and recorded accurately. I believe voters must have faith in the
electoral process for our democracy to succeed, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the coming year to ensure that our
Nation's election system is fair and effective.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are here today in this extraordinary
session to discuss a challenge to Ohio's electors.
It was gratifying to see the high level of interest in the election
create such a large voter turnout. However, it was discouraging to hear
of the problems that affected the election in many parts of the
country, including Ohio.
Representative Conyers, other House Democrats, and individuals across
this country deserve our thanks for the important work they have done
to document the issues that arose from the 2004 election.
I would also like to thank Senator Boxer and Representative Tubbs
Jones for their diligence in bringing this issue to the forefront.
All voters deserve to get answers, and corrective actions, to the
reported irregularities and flaws of the 2004 election.
As my colleagues may know, the Government Accountability Office, GAO,
is currently conducting a comprehensive investigation of many of the
issues raised in the 2004 election.
I am very supportive of this investigation, and believe that through
a complete and full investigation by the GAO, answers to the questions
raised regarding the 2004 election will be obtained.
The information the GAO obtains will allow the Congress to take
appropriate action to address the problems uncovered.
At a minimum, there are two changes to our election system that
should be implemented by the Congress: requiring a paper trail for
electronic voting machines and creating a national standard for
provisional ballots.
I will work with my colleagues in the Congress to enact these
important reforms. We must work to maintain, and indeed improve, the
confidence in and integrity of the election process.
I am under no illusion that the actions taken on this challenge will
change the outcome of the election. Senator Kerry has conceded the
election. The events of today will not change this result, and I fear
they will only further polarize our political landscape.
The solutions to the irregularities of the election will not be found
or enacted in this 2-hour process today. They will come from a complete
investigation, like the on-going GAO one.
Because I believe that contesting the slate of Ohio electors is not
the way to achieve the needed reforms of the election system, I will
vote against this challenge today.
However, I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be
vigorously pursuing reforms of the election system to enact much needed
improvements in the system.
We have to make sure our elections are a solid reflection of the
voters' intent. Given the resources of our great Nation, there is no
reason why we should not be able to achieve this goal.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to comment
briefly on voting irregularities that occurred during our most recent
presidential election. While some steps were taken after the 2000
election to help rectify a number of problems with our voting process
that were identified across the country, the election in November
demonstrates that more needs to be done.
The outcome of the November election will not change because of the
current process underway in both the Senate and the House, but I
certainly understand the goal of those who have initiated this debate
with their written objections to certifying the election results. While
I understand that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) has
indicated that his campaign's legal team was unable to find evidence
that would change the outcome of the election, enough questions have
been raised to justify a thorough examination by Congress and the
administration. Of course, the rules governing this debate are highly
restrictive, and do not afford any meaningful review of potential
voting irregularities, let alone the consideration of possible
solutions to any problems. That effort will have to be done outside the
confines of the specific work we have today, and to that end, I
strongly hope the Senate Rules Committee will make this the very
highest priority, and that the Senate's leadership will schedule any
legislation that comes from such a review for prompt floor action.
Since the election, I have heard both Democrats and Republicans
pledge to work together to tackle some of our most pressing issues. We
are 3 days into the 109th Congress and it is time to put that promise
to the test. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to
help ensure that in future elections every eligible citizen who wishes
to vote is able to do so and all votes are counted.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, as we prepare to commemorate the
40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are called on to
look back and reflect on whether we have fixed the systemic problems
that this historic legislation sought to address. Have we ensured that
all citizens are provided equal access to the ballot, regardless of
race, ethnicity, or language-minority status? Have we created the
proper safeguards and procedures that make certain that every vote is
counted? Have we done enough to protect our democracy's most sacred
right--the right to vote?

[[Page S49]]

The accounts from our most recent Presidential election suggest that
we have not yet met our goal of securing a free and fair election for
all Americans. Driving this point home is yesterday's 102-page report
published by the House Judiciary Committee's Democratic staff. The
report goes into great detail describing the voting irregularities that
arose in Ohio last November. The allegations include accounts of voter
registration barriers, voter intimidation, voting machine shortages and
failures, and confusion over the counting of provisional ballots. These
accounts raise serious doubts about whether Ohio electors selected on
December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law or
Federal requirements and constitutional standards.
The most troubling revelation from the committee staff's report is
the seeming disproportionate impact these voting irregularities had on
minority voters. And so I ask, 40 years later, have we done enough to
make sure the letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act is being
enforced?
I ask my colleagues to join me in pushing for congressional hearings
on the alleged voting irregularities witnessed in Ohio and elsewhere
this past election season. I also ask them to join me in examining
whether we need to reform our election laws to ensure that we have free
and fair elections for all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Only then can we be sure that we have adequately protected the
constitutional right of all qualified citizens to participate in our
democracy's most cherished right.
I am traveling overseas on a humanitarian mission to Southeast Asia
to visit the areas most affected by the recent tsunami and regret that
I will not be available to participate in this afternoon's debate. I
nonetheless commend my colleagues who are raising these important
issues, and applaud their efforts to give a voice to those who were
disenfranchised last November.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that
Congress tried to address after the 2000 election nightmare. Frankly, I
am stunned to be standing before you 4 years later to take up the same
issues of voting irregularities and uncounted votes. And I thank my
colleague from California for bringing this important issue before the
Senate for debate. Her opposition serves as a call upon the Congress to
take action this year to address the ongoing problems in our electoral
system.
Today, I will vote to certify the result, but once again we see that
the election system in the United States does not work to provide
absolute confidence in the results. Today, I am voting to certify the
results because I do not believe that the voting problems changed the
outcome of the election. Certification should not be delayed further
under such circumstances. I believe the majority of voters in Ohio have
spoken and that result should be certified.
But while I do not question the result, I rise today to call
attention to what went wrong, to the disenfranchised voters, the broken
machines and problems people had casting their ballots on election day.
This should not be happening in the United States of America. When we
vote for President, we should all have total confidence that every vote
counts and that every vote is counted.
There simply should be no questions or problems when we vote for the
President of the United States. But, here we are, again, talking about
voting problems and talking about lost or uncounted votes.
Like many Americans, I was shocked in 2000 to see how outdated the
voting systems in America were. I was also shocked to see how easy it
was to manipulate those voting systems and how easy it was for votes to
be lost or go uncounted.
It was literally unbelievable. I asked myself, how could such things
happen here in the United States? In 2000, we all learned that many
ballots, many people's votes, were thrown out, lost, misplaced, or
miscounted.
We saw election officials who did not know the rules and some who
appeared to ignore the rules.
We witnessed innocent mistakes, machine mistakes, ballot mistakes and
mistakes that were not so innocent.
The result was that many votes simply did not count.
The Presidential election of 2000 was an eyeopener. Our election
systems in this country, the World's oldest democracy, were broken and
needed to be fixed.
Republicans and Democrats agreed this had to be done. It was
important. It was vital.
And we did something. We passed the Help America Vote Act. We set
standards. We authorized money for the states to help them get new
machines, new technology and fix their electoral systems. We provided
for provisional ballot systems so that if there was a question about a
voters registration they could still cast a ballot.
We thought that our voting systems were well on their way to being
fixed. We thought that we would never have another election like 2000.
We thought that all votes were going to count and all votes were going
to be counted.
We were wrong.
We now see, in 2004, 4 years after the 2000 election debacle, we have
people standing in lines for hours because polling places could not
handle the turnout, people being given the wrong information, machines
breaking down, too few machines in some precincts, ballots being lost
or misplaced, and voters being told to go to the wrong place to vote.
That is simply not right.
It is not clear if these problems by accident or intended, but the
result was that again people were not able to cast their votes or their
votes simply were not counted. That's just wrong. That is not suppose
to happen in the United States.
And where did much of this happen? In minority neighborhoods, in
cities, in economically distressed areas, in primarily Democratic areas
across the Nation. I ask myself, is this just a coincidence? Those
communities do not think so. And it is critical that we let them know
that we take their concerns seriously.
What happened in the last election is less important than making sure
that it never happens again. These communities need to know that the
Congress is taking action to meet their concerns and will work to
correct the abuses that were documented in many States in 2004.
This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Ensuring that every
registered voter who wants to vote can vote is not a partisan issue. It
is an issue of what it means to be an American. In 2004, everyone
should agree that every vote should count and we have to do whatever is
necessary to make sure that happens.
I call on the Congress to renew its efforts to ensure that there is
true electoral reform that every American who casts their ballot can be
sure it is counted and that every American who wants to cast their
ballot has that opportunity. This Congress should take three steps:
We should fully fund the Help American Vote Act so that all States
have the resources that they need to truly reform their electoral
systems.
We need to pass legislation to ensure that there is a voter verified
paper trail on electronic machines so voters can verify that they cast
their ballot and who they cast it for.
We need to re-examine the issue of electoral reform to see what steps
the Congress needs to take to ensure that the voting rights of all
Americans are protected. So that we have uniform standards. So that
provisional ballots work, people do not have to wait in long lines,
machines are operative and voters can get to the polls on election day.
And, we must do it now, before this issue fades from view again. The
media will move on to other issues. We will move on to other issues.
There are many important issues that this Congress will address this
year, but as we look forward, and this year celebrate the 40th
Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, we must make this a priority
issue. We must act to protect those vital rights and protect our
democracy. There is no better way to honor this historic Act than to
ensure that we fix the problems in our electoral system that continue
disenfranchise voters.
I thank my colleague, Senator Boxer, from California for giving us
the opportunity to debate these important points and focusing the
spotlight on the voting problems still facing our democracy. And while
I vote today to

[[Page S50]]

certify the election, I do not certify how our electoral system works
in the United States and on that front we must now act.
I look forward to working on this with other members of the Senate.
But, we must not be here in 2006 or 2008 talking about how shocked we
are to see yet again votes not counted, ballots missing, lost and
misplaced, and confused election officials. We must act this year,
while the spotlight is still on, to do more to ensure that all voters
will have confidence in our electoral system.
Mr. LEVIN. I will vote against objecting to counting Ohio's electoral
votes. Of course I am concerned by reports of irregularities across the
country during the 2004 presidential election. The 109th Congress
should address these problems this year as part of election reform
legislation. But voting to throw out the electoral votes of a State in
the absence of clear evidence that voting fraud in that State changed
the outcome would set a dangerous precedent for future elections in
which the majority party of Congress could overturn the outcome of a
presidential election.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, free and fair elections are the
foundation of our democracy. Thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands
of citizens, millions more Americans registered and went to the pools
this year. But despite this dramatic expansion in public participation,
many voters faced barriers to casting their ballot. Disenfranchisement
and barriers to voting are fundamentally undemocratic and should be
unacceptable in the freest nation in the world.
On November 3, I conceded the Presidential election to George Bush
and also expressed my commitment to ensuring that every vote in this
election is counted. The questions being raised by my colleagues in
Congress about the vote in Ohio are important. As evidenced by the
media and Congressman John Conyers' report of the vote in Ohio, there
were many voting irregularities in the November election that led to
the disenfranchisement of voters. These included long lines at
predominantly minority polling places resulting from the failure to
provide sufficient number of voting machines; voter intimidation and
misinformation; the restriction of provisional ballots in a fashion
that likely disenfranchised voters; and instances in which
malfunctioning voting machines transferred Kerry votes to Bush.
I strongly believe that we need to investigate this election and
reform our system. However, while I am deeply concerned about the
issues the questions and issues being raised by this objection and
think they are very important, I do not believe that there is
sufficient evidence to support the objection and change the outcome of
the election and I am not joining their protest of the Ohio electors.
Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices
by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied
the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence
that would change the outcome of the election.
It is critical that we investigate and understand any and every
voting irregularity anywhere in our country, not because it would
change the outcome of the election but because Americans have to
believe that their votes are counted in our democracy.
We must take action this Congress to make sure that the problems
voters encountered in Ohio and elsewhere never happen again. We must
make sure there are no questions or doubts in future elections. It is
critical to our democracy that we investigate and act to prevent voting
irregularities and voter intimidation across the country.
I strongly support the efforts of the civil rights and voting rights
groups across the country that continue to investigate what happened in
2004 and how we can ensure it will never happen again. A Presidential
election is a national Federal election but we have different standards
in different States for casting and counting votes. We must have a
national Federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the
2004 election.
I am calling on my Republican colleagues to put election reform on
the congressional agenda this year. The Republican leadership in the
House and Senate must commit to make protecting voting rights a
priority and commit to adding election reform legislation to the
legislative calendar this year. One goal must be to eliminate barriers
to voting, to encourage the greatest level of civic participation
possible, and to restore confidence in the notion that every eligible
voter will have the opportunity to vote and to have their vote counted.
I have spoken with Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid and my
colleagues in the House and Senate about my intention to introduce
legislation this year to ensure transparency and accountability in our
voting system and the need for the Democratic Caucus to make voting
rights and electoral reform one of our top priority pieces of
legislation. Election reform will be one of my top agenda items.
I will be meeting in coming weeks with key leaders on both sides of
the aisle and from civil rights and voting rights groups across the
Nation. I plan to use the information gathered by Representative
Conyers in his report, and information from other investigations
underway, to guide my legislation.
We must invest resources in our country to help State and local
communities purchase modern voting machines and do research and
development on safe and secure forms of voting. We must ensure that our
voting machines enable voters to verify their vote.
No American citizen should wake up the morning after the election and
worry their vote wasn't counted. No citizen should be denied at the
polls if they are eligible to vote. As the greatest, wealthiest nation
on Earth, our citizens should not have to be forced to vote on old
unaccountable voting machines. And, as the greatest, wealthiest Nation
on Earth, our citizens should never be forced to vote on old,
unaccountable and nontransparent voting machines from companies
controlled by partisan activists.
Together we can put the critical issue of electoral reform on the
front burner in Washington and across the country.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe it is extraordinarily important
for both sides to be gracious when an American election is over. But I
also believe it is extraordinarily important not to ignore urgently
needed election reform, such as requiring a paper trail for every
single ballot that is cast in our country. Such a paper trial is
required in my home State. In this last election, record numbers of
Oregonians voted. There were no allegations of fraud. The system
worked, and it worked well. Unfortunately, that is not the case in too
many communities in our country.
When the Senate last debated the issue of election reform, this body
spent weeks debating whether one dog in the Midwest was an illegal
voter. I worked with colleagues on a bipartisan basis. We made sure
that dog, Mitzi, would not be allowed to vote again. Now, in the name
of justice, when hundreds of thousands of Americans feel they have been
disenfranchised, I don't think their concerns ought to be swept under
the rug.
Credible journalists have now documented voting irregularities across
the country, and that ought to trouble every Member of the body.
Incredible reports come from the States of North Carolina, Indiana,
Washington, Florida, and Ohio. In my view, while not proving to be of a
volume that would have changed the outcome of the Presidential
election, when you take these findings together, they raise very
significant and troubling matters that this body should be tackling on
a bipartisan basis. I do believe there is critical work ahead of this
body with respect to election reform. So I did write in November to
Representative Conyers to ask that he examine these voting
irregularities. The problems with provisional ballots in the State of
Ohio particularly concerned me because I was one of the principal
authors of the section of the Help America Vote Act that involved
provisional ballots. The decision of the Ohio Secretary of State to
restrict the ability of voters to use provisional ballots, I thought,
was troubling. His decisions raised serious questions with respect to
whether they were consistent with what the Senate had in mind as we
wrote that provision.

[[Page S51]]

I was also concerned about the reports from Ohio, where in one county
only 800 citizens were registered to vote and more than 4,500 votes
were counted. This just defies common sense, and it is one of the
reasons why I have come to the floor to make the case for a continued
focus on the issue of election reform.
The problems of election abuse are not ones that can be given short
shrift if we are to keep faith with our citizens and ensure that their
fundamental belief that our democratic system is sound is maintained.
Otherwise, we will see a growing lack of confidence in the conduct of
our elections, and that lack of confidence will come to overshadow some
of our elections altogether. We will see many more Members of this body
come to the floor demanding to know what has happened.
I end my statement with the plea that, on a bipartisan basis, this
body return to the issue of election reform, correct the abuses that
have been credibly documented over the last few weeks, and that we do
it in a bipartisan fashion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the contention of
the junior Senator from California that we have to take a very hard
look at this. We are trying to demonstrate the virtues of democracy to
Iraqis and Ukrainians and other people around the world who are
struggling to be free. People must have confidence that our election
results are unassailable.
Unfortunately, questions have been raised in the Presidential
election of 2000 and in the Presidential election of 2004. At this
point, I want to be clear: I am not challenging President Bush's
victory in the State of Ohio. Neither has Senator Kerry. But there have
been reports of systematic voter disenfranchisement and other problems
in Ohio, such that we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to
investigate it.
Yesterday, Congressman John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House
Judiciary Committee, issued a report of problems that occurred in Ohio.
Some of the problems he reported include problems with voting machines
in predominantly minority, Democratic-leaning wards, which caused
people to wait 10 hours or more in the rain. One precinct was forced to
close at 9:25 in the morning because its voting machines were not
working. The Ohio Republican Party suppressed the turnout of minority,
Democratic-leaning voters by engaging in preelection caging tactics,
tactics which were declared illegal by a Federal court.
Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, deviated from
election law by severely restricting voters' access to provisional
ballots. He went so far as to reject voter registration applications
based on paperweight and texture. Those actions and his complete
unwillingness to cooperate with Congressman Conyers' investigation are
deeply troubling. His actions are troubling, particularly because he
didn't just serve as the chief election official of his State; he also
cochaired the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.
Allowing a State official to oversee a Federal election and
simultaneously serve as a partisan campaign official for a candidate in
that election is a blatant conflict of interest and we have to put a
stop to it. That is why later this month I am going to introduce the
Federal Election Integrity Act, a bill to prohibit State election
officials from overseeing Federal elections in which they play a
partisan role on behalf of one of the candidates.
Secretary Blackwell is now running for Governor. He recently sent a
fundraising letter to potential Republican donors. I think his letter
underscores the need for my bill. The first page of his letter tells
the story. In part, it says:

I have no doubt that the strong campaign we helped the
President run in Ohio . . . can easily be credited with
turning out record numbers of conservatives and evangelicals
on election day.

It is not surprising that many people have no doubt that Secretary
Blackwell also ran a strong campaign against other voters, namely
minorities and Democrats.
Americans need to believe their election officials are beyond
reproach. Allowing such officials to serve simultaneously in a partisan
campaign capacity seriously undermines that confidence. That is why,
regardless of what happens today, I will introduce the Federal Election
Integrity Act. It is a step we can and should take to restore
confidence that our elections are fair and the results are accurate.

I don't believe the objection the junior Senator from California has
raised will be sustained this afternoon, but that doesn't mean we
should not discuss the problems that precipitated the objection and do
something about them in the future to assure that when the votes are
counted, we know everybody has had a fair chance to cast their ballots
and that there hasn't been any tinkering with them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is obviously a difficult debate for
many reasons. I commend the Senator from California for joining with
members of the House, most particularly Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs
Jones, in raising the objection, because it does permit us to air some
of these issues--something I believe is necessary for the smooth
functioning of our democracy and the integrity of the most precious
right of any citizen, namely, the right to vote.
As we look at our election system, I think it is fair to say there
are many legitimate questions about its accuracy and about its
integrity, and they are not confined to the State of Ohio. They are
ones that have arisen throughout our country and certainly because of
the election of 2000 have been given high relief in the last 4 years.
Then questions were raised additionally with respect to this election
which deepened the concern of many people about whether we can assure
the continuity of our democratic process by ensuring the consent of the
governed and the acceptance of the results of elections.
Several weeks ago, we stood in great admiration as a nation behind
the people of Ukraine as they took to the streets to demand they be
given the right to an election where every vote was counted.
In a few weeks, we are going to see an election in Iraq. We know
there are people literally dying in Iraq for the right to cast a free
vote. I am very proud of our country, that we have stood with
Ukrainians, Iraqis, and others around the world, but increasingly, I
worry that if this body, this Congress does not stand up on a
bipartisan basis for the right to vote here at home, our moral
authority will be weakened.
I take that very seriously because freedom is our most precious
value, and we have for 225-plus years worked to form a more perfect
Union. At first, not everybody was permitted to vote in our own
country, but through constitutional changes, a civil war, and a civil
rights movement, we expanded the franchise. This year we will celebrate
the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and it will be an opportunity
for us to take a look at this landmark legislation and determine how we
are going to move it into the 21st century so it really stands for what
it was intended to do when it was first passed.
I would be standing here saying this no matter what the outcome of
the election because I still think the best rule in politics is the
golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I
worry, whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration or a
local county, State, or Federal election, that we are on a slippery
slope as a nation.
My colleague, Senator Boxer, and I, along with former Senator Bob
Graham of Florida, introduced legislation last year to try to assure a
verifiable paper audit. We did not get anywhere with that. We did not
get a hearing before the Rules Committee, and I hope the distinguished
chair of the Rules Committee will hold such a hearing this year because
if we can buy a lottery ticket or go to a bank and make an ATM deposit,
then we know we can use an electronic transfer mechanism that gives us
a record. That is just one of the many issues we can deal with
technologically.
Last spring, India, the largest democracy--we are the oldest
democracy, so in that way we are real partners in this great enterprise
of democracy--had an election. Mr. President, 550 million or

[[Page S52]]

so people voted, from the dot-com billionaire to the poor illiterate
peasant. They all voted. They voted on electronic voting machines. They
voted in a way that guaranteed the safety, security, and accuracy of
their vote. They had uniform standards. They had a nonpartisan board
that oversaw that election, and the result was shocking. They threw out
the existing government. Nobody had predicted that. Yet they did it
with integrity.
Surely, we should be setting the standards. I hope in this body, and
thanks to the objection of my friend from California, this debate which
started today will continue.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spoke on a procedural matter earlier. I
ask unanimous consent that not be deemed to be my speech in regard to
this matter.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today great men and women of our Armed
Forces are working to bring the right of free and fair elections to
Iraq. In less than a month, there will be elections in Iraq. The
sacrifice of our military demands that we work to ensure our own
elections are fair. That is why today's debate is here, and I applaud
my friend from California for allowing us to talk a little bit about
elections generally.
A constitutional right that can be said to help secure all other
rights is the right to vote. History has shown us that the right to
vote demands constant vigilance and attention. While secured by our
Constitution, widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans and
other Americans led to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the
amendments in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
Constitutional protection was not enough. We needed tough new laws
and took action. More recently, the abuses in Florida 4 years ago
demonstrated the need for change and led to reform--and it was reform--
in the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
I spread on the Record today the good work of Senator McConnell,
Senator Dodd, and Senator Bond. There were others, but those are the
three who stand out in my mind.
While the literacy tests and poll taxes of the past are gone, a more
insidious form of disenfranchisement continues to taint our electoral
system.
In this past election, in the State of Nevada, phone calls were made
to heavily African-American parts of Las Vegas to try to trick those
voters into not voting. The same happened in the Hispanic areas of our
State, especially in Clark County. These calls, which we were unable to
trace, told voters election day was November 3, not November 2.
Our registration process in Nevada is also tainted by the proven
destruction of Democratic voter registration forms. This is clear. It
happened. There was a company hired by the Republican National
Committee to register only Republicans. We had people come forward and
say they destroyed Democratic registration forms. That investigation is
still underway.
In some of my earliest elections in Nevada, private individuals
dressed in uniforms meant to resemble police officers stood around
polling places in minority voting spots to frighten people from coming
to vote, and it worked. These officers were posted, as I indicated, at
the polls to intimidate these minority voters.
In this past election in Ohio, we heard a lot about what appeared to
be wrong there, and I hope there will be more done to determine what
went on in Ohio.
Legal challenges to restrict provisional voting, a provision of HAVA,
which is the Help America Vote Act which I talked about earlier, meant
to cure the widespread disenfranchisement of minorities in Florida and
around the rest of the country.
These problems damage our system, deny our citizens equal protection,
and undermine the right to vote. Rooting out this corruption requires
not only strong laws but I believe strong hearts. It relies upon the
integrity of our election officials in every State and each one of us
to speak up when abuses occur.
It is my hope the debate today will once again lead to action to cure
some of the more glaring defects of the 2004 election. One of the most
significant problems in Ohio and in many other States was the lack of
measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting machines. While
we have made improvements that are historic with HAVA, one important
omission is in this area; that is, electronic voting, how to ensure the
integrity of it.
In the last election, of all 50 States, Nevada was the only State
where we had total electronic voting with a paper trail. When you voted
in Nevada, you did your electronic voting and you could look right
there to see for whom you voted. No mistakes. You did not take it with
you, of course, but it was in the machine, and if there was a recount,
it could be determined easily.
This is the way it should happen all over America, an electronic
machine with a paper trail.
Last year, my colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from
Nevada, Mr. Ensign, and I introduced a measure to require paper trails
for electronic voting machines every place. We will introduce our
bipartisan Voting Integrity and Verification Act in this Congress.
I hope that as we consider the 2004 election today--I ask unanimous
consent for one additional minute, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The statute allows no more than 5 minutes
to any Senator, I regret.
Mr. REID. I will end by saying we look forward to enacting
commonsense measures such as the Voting Integrity and Verification Act
which Senator Ensign and I will introduce in a few days to continue to
improve the integrity of our elections.
I do not view the need to consider these additional reforms as a sign
that our electoral system has failed. That we learn, investigate, and
reform demonstrates its strength. The only failure following the 2004
election would be to not acknowledge and act to strengthen the right to
vote.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join with me
in that effort.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from California is performing an important
service for American democracy today, along with her partner in this
effort on the House of Representatives side, the Congresswoman from
Ohio. Their challenge allows a needed debate in the Senate, as well as
in the House of Representatives. This debate is short today. We are
limited to 5 minutes. I hope this debate will continue in the future,
at least this year, to try to reach some better conclusions as to how
we operate voting in America.
I want to be clear that I do not question the legitimacy or outcome
of our 2004 Presidential election. Nor will I vote to overturn the
result of the vote in Ohio. The irregularities and the
disenfranchisement that took place in that State and elsewhere, which
are real and deeply worrisome, do not appear to me to have determined
the outcome, either nationally or in Ohio.
But the right to vote and the need for citizens to have confidence
that their votes will be counted correctly are basic to our democracy.
That is why I believe there can be no more appropriate time to talk
about problems in our electoral system than today, the day on which we
officially confirm and proclaim the results of our recent election. So
I thank Senator Boxer, as well as Representative Tubbs Jones, who is a
former judge in the State of Ohio, for this responsible action.
I say to my friend Mr. DeWine from Ohio, whom I listened to briefly a
little bit ago, this is not about whether George Bush won the election.
It is about taking a hard look at the voting structure in America,
asking how we can make it better. How can we make it better and more
equitable for people?
Now we tried, through the Help America Vote, to fix some of the
problems, but there is evidence we did not do enough. We know that
massive lines at the polls in Ohio likely led to thousands of voters
giving up on voting. People had to wait 4, 5, 10 hours in line.
Standing in line for 10 hours in America is like throwing acid in the
face of democracy. It mars it. It scars it permanently.
Now, why the long lines? They did not have an adequate number of
voting

[[Page S53]]

machines. Where were the lines? Many of them were in urban areas and
minority communities because there was an inequitable distribution of
machines between urban and suburban areas.
According to the New York Times, in Columbus, OH, there was an
average of 4.6 machines per voter in Bush's strongest precincts while
there were only 3.9 machines in the so-called Kerry precincts.
What we saw in Ohio was a concerted effort by an official, the
Secretary of State, to try to minimize the ability of Ohioans to cast
their vote. The Secretary of State was also the Chairman of the Ohio
Bush re-election campaign. For example, in the weeks leading up to the
election, the Secretary of State of Ohio tried to argue that thousands
should be denied the right to vote because the forms they used to
register were printed on the wrong weight of paper.
The Secretary of State also argued that absentee voters who had not
received their ballots should not be allowed to vote, another concerted
effort to suppress votes.
We also have reports of electronic voting machines not voting
properly. A system where software is kept secret has been allowed to be
the norm. This is an inappropriate practice that could result in
serious fraud. Clearly, we need a Federal statute requiring independent
review of the software used in electronic voting machines, as well as
providing both sides access to the software in these machines.
What we saw in Ohio, what we likely would see in many States if they
came under this type of scrutiny, is continuing problems with the whole
election process that need to be fixed. We need to make changes in
Federal law to make it clear that election officials are to work to
maximize the right of people to vote rather than finding technicalities
to disenfranchise them.

It is curious to note that in the Constitution of the United States,
there is not a provision guaranteeing the right to vote. There are a
number of amendments, the 14th, the 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th, that expand
the concept, say people cannot be denied the right to vote on the basis
of poll taxes, race, color, gender, and age.
Perhaps what we need is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the
right of every citizen of the United States a secret ballot and to have
that ballot counted. I think it would come as a shock to most Americans
to know that it is not in the Constitution of the United States that we
have that right to vote.
This debate is needed to fix a system that is broken.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any Senator who has not spoken
who wishes to speak on this matter?
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I did not anticipate speaking today, but
the importance of this issue is enough for me to address this body.
During the election, I had the occasion of meeting a woman who had
supported me in my campaign. She decided to come to shake my hand and
take a photograph. She is a wonderful woman. She was not asking for
anything. I was very grateful that she took time to come by. It was an
unexceptional moment except for the fact that she was born in 1894. Her
name is Marguerite Lewis, an African-American woman who had been born
in Louisiana, born in the shadow of slavery, born at a time when
lynchings were commonplace, born at a time when African Americans and
women could not vote. Yet, over the course of decades she had
participated in broadening our democracy and ensuring that, in fact, at
some point, if not herself, then her children, her grandchildren, and
her great-grandchildren would be in a position in which they could,
too, call themselves citizens of the United States and make certain
that this Government works not just on behalf of the mighty and the
powerful but also on behalf of people like her.
So the fact that she voted and her vote was counted in this election
was of supreme importance to her and it is the memory of talking to her
and shaking her hand that causes me to rise on this occasion.
I am absolutely convinced that the President of the United States,
George Bush, won this election. I also believe he got more votes in
Ohio. As has already been said by some of the speakers in this body,
this is not an issue in which we are challenging the outcome of the
election. It is important for us to separate the issue of the election
outcome with the election process.
I was not in this body 4 years ago, but what I observed as a voter
and as a citizen of Illinois 4 years ago was troubling evidence of the
fact that not every vote was being counted. It is unfortunate that 4
years later we continue to see circumstances in which people who
believe they have the right to vote, who show up at the polls, still
continue to confront the sort of problems that have been documented as
taking place not just in Ohio but places all across the country.
I strongly urge that this Chamber, as well as the House of
Representatives, take it upon itself once and for all to reform this
system.
There is no reason, at a time when we have enormous battles taking
place ideologically all across the globe, at a time when we try to make
certain we encourage democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places
throughout the world, that we have the legitimacy of our elections
challenged--rightly or wrongly--by people who are not certain as to
whether our processes are fair and just.
This is something we can fix. We have experts on both sides of the
aisle who know how to fix it. What we have lacked is the political
will.
I strongly urge that, in a circumstance in which too many voters have
stood in long lines for hours, in which too many voters have cast votes
on machines that jam or malfunction or suck the votes without a trace,
in which too many voters try to register to vote only to discover that
their names don't appear on the roles or that partisan political
interests and those that serve them have worked hard to throw up every
barrier to recognize them as lawful, in which too many voters will know
that there are different elections for different parts of the country
and that these differences turn shamefully on differences of wealth or
of race, in which too many voters have to contend with State officials,
servants of the public, who put partisan or personal political
interests ahead of the public in administering our elections--in such
circumstances, we have an obligation to fix the problem.
I have to add this is not a problem unique to this election, and it
is not a partisan problem. Keep in mind, I come from Cook County, from
Chicago, in which there is a long record of these kinds of problems
taking place and disadvantaging Republicans as well as Democrats. So I
ask that all of us rise up and use this occasion to amend this problem.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend and thank our colleague from
California who, as a result of her objection, has allowed us to have a
couple of hours here to debate and discuss the events that occurred on
election day this year. I thank her for doing that. Whatever occurred
during the day, I think it is important that this body take a moment
now and review what has occurred since election 2000 and this election
as well. I recognize we are still operating under a very imperfect
system when it comes to the Federal elections in this country. I thank
the distinguished minority leader, Senator Reid, for commending this
body for its support of the Help America Vote Act that we adopted
almost unanimously in this body a couple of years ago, through the work
of Senators McConnell and Bond and others.
It was certainly not a perfect piece of legislation, but it was the
first time in the history of this country, outside of the Voting Rights
Act, that this body, the Congress of the United States, spoke
comprehensively about the conduct of Federal elections.
I point out to my colleagues that while certainly things need to be
done to improve even that effort, there were 119,000 provisional
ballots cast in the State of Ohio that never would have been counted
had we not adopted provisional ballot requirements.
There are certainly legitimate questions about what does and doesn't
constitute a ballot. I am drafting for my colleagues' approval a
comprehensive piece of legislation that deals with the shortcomings in
the HAVA bill itself.

[[Page S54]]

The fact is we are going to have access to statewide voter
registration. The fact is we are making it possible for 20 million
disabled Americans to cast a ballot independently and privately.
I know personally what this is like, having watched a sibling of mine
having to cast a ballot with the help of someone else, despite two
master's degrees and being a teacher for 40 years. We also put into
HAVA the requirement that every voter have the right to see his or her
ballot before actually casting their ballot. HAVA required that all
voters who are challenged, for any reason, have the right to cast a
provisional ballot. The Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
of the United States affirmed the absolute right to receive a
provisional ballot, without any additional requirements.

We have made great progress here. More needs to be done, clearly, if
we are going to make a Federal election system exist where every vote
will be counted and every eligible person will have an equal
opportunity to vote.
I appreciate the opportunity here to talk about this. My hope would
be that we would build bipartisan support, just as we did 2 years ago
in adopting the Help America Vote Act, in both bodies, and get the kind
of bipartisan support necessary so the conduct of elections, Federal
elections, will have a system that has the confidence of the voters of
this country.
I think it was Thomas Paine who, more than 200 years ago, said the
right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. If you
don't get this right, every other right is in jeopardy, and that is the
business we need to be about.
Obviously events in Ohio and elsewhere raise legitimate and serious
concerns. In this country we are still operating Federal elections on
the basis of a voluntary work, pretty much, of local people. It worked
pretty well for many years. It doesn't work any longer. It has to be
changed. We have to do a better job. It is important that this body,
the Congress of the United States, say to the American public we are
going to do everything we can to see to it that you have an equal
opportunity to vote and that your vote will be counted, and we are
going to have the people, the technology, and the resources in place to
make that happen.
We have made great strides. More needs to be done. The Senator from
California has given us an opportunity today to highlight the
importance of this. I regret that the Senate finds itself in this
situation today where we find that the American public still lacks
confidence in the legitimacy of the process and the results of our
presidential elections.
But as painful as this debate today may be, this discourse is
necessary to ensuring the American public that we, here in Congress,
hear their concerns and frustrations, and will continue to fight to see
that their most basic of all democratic rights--the right to vote--is
secure.
Sadly, the concerns we are hearing expressed today are all too
familiar to those we heard exactly 4 years ago following the debacle of
the 2000 presidential election.
Following the 2000 presidential election, Congress responded to the
problems which arose in Florida and other states by enacting bipartisan
legislation, the Help America Vote Act, which I was pleased to
coauthor. The goal of that bill was to ensure that every eligible
American would have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that
vote counted, regardless of race, gender, disability, language or party
or precinct; and, that it would be easier to vote, but harder to
defraud the system.
The Help America Vote Act--or HAVA--had the support of countless
civil rights, disability, language minority and voting rights groups,
and organizations representing state and local governments. HAVA has
been hailed as the first civil rights law of the 21st century and I am
committed to ensuring that it is fully implemented as such.
While the results of the 2004 presidential election may not have been
contested in the same manner as those of the 2000 election, the jury is
still out on whether HAVA successfully addressed all the problems that
arose in the 2000 election. While I believe there is still much work to
do to ensure the franchise for all Americans, I am confident
that without HAVA, thousands of eligible American voters would not have
been able to cast a vote, nor have their vote counted, in the November
2004 presidential election.

It is important to remember that HAVA is not yet fully implemented.
In some respects, the most important reforms have yet to be implemented
by the States.
These reforms include:

mandatory uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements that
all voting systems provide second-chance voting for voters;
full accessibility for the disabled and language
minorities;
a permanent paper record for manual audits;
uniform standards for what constitutes a vote and how such
a vote will be counted for each type of voting system used by
a State; and
a computerized statewide voter registration list which must
contain the name and registration information for every
eligible voter in a State and be electronically available to
every State and local election official at the polling place
on election day.

Had these additional reforms been in place on election day this
November, many of the Election Day problems that arose across the
country could have been avoided or resolved at the polling place.
But one of the HAVA reforms that was in place this November did make
a difference: the requirement that all States provide a provisional
ballot to voters who are challenged at the polls, for any reason. This
requirement ensured the franchise for thousands of Americans on
November 2 last year.
In Ohio alone, 155,000 voters cast provisional ballots, of which an
estimated 77 percent were counted. That represents over 119,000
American voters who otherwise might not have been able to cast a vote
or have their vote counted, but for HAVA.
Some States, including Ohio, attempted to restrict the right to a
provisional ballot, but were ultimately unsuccessful. The Federal Court
of Appeals for the 6th Circuit of the United States affirmed the
absolute right to receive a provisional ballot, without any additional
requirements, in the decision of Sandusky vs. Blackwell decided on
October 26, just one week prior to the election.
More importantly, that decision upheld the right of an individual
voter to seek judicial redress of the rights conferred by HAVA and
upheld HAVA as a civil rights law enforceable as such in the courts.
As with any comprehensive civil rights legislation, HAVA's reach and
effectiveness will have to be hammered out by the courts. As that
process plays out, coupled with the States' implementation of the
remaining HAVA reforms, we will be in a better position to assess
whether this landmark legislation hit the mark or needs further reform.
But it is already clear, based on the November election, that it will
take further reform to ensure that all eligible Americans have an equal
opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. We already know
that States are implementing the provisional ballot requirements in
significantly differing manners. It is simply unacceptable that a
Federally-guaranteed provisional ballot, cast for President of the
United States, may not be counted simply because of the local precinct
that the otherwise eligible voter was standing in at the time he or she
voted.
We know from the November elections that election officials did not
provide sufficient numbers of machines to ensure that all voters could
vote in a timely manner. We also know that many voters, such as those
in Ohio, were still forced to vote on antiquated equipment such as the
punch card which disenfranchises minority voters at greater rates than
other voters, or use ballots that are confusing. And we know that some
states still insist on purging voters based on inaccurate lists and
refuse to reinstate the voting rights of felons, even after they have
completed their debt to society.

It is time to consider whether, for Federal elections, there is a
national responsibility to ensure that no matter where and how a ballot
is cast for the office of the President of the United States, all
Americans will have confidence that their vote was cast and counted in
a uniform and nondiscriminatory way.
I will be introducing comprehensive election reform legislation when
we reconvene which will build on HAVA and address these and other
issues. My proposal will:

[[Page S55]]

require states to provide enough machines, and ensure they
are geographically distributed;
ensure that the provisions of HAVA that require that voters
have a chance to verify their ballot before it is cast and
that an audit trail exists to establish that such ballot was
counted are implemented;
require states to offer extended voting times to ensure
that single parents, the disabled, and those who simply
cannot get to the polls on the one day can still cast their
vote;
ensure that only eligible voters can vote, but that no
voter who is eligible will be barred from the polls simply
because he or she did not check a box on a form; and
require the reinstatement of felons for the purpose of
casting a Federal ballot.

And my legislation will provide the Federal funds necessary to ensure
that the states can timely implement the reforms.
The Help America Vote Act is an historic landmark legislation that
comprehensively defines, for the first time in this Nation's history,
the role of the Federal government in the conduct of Federal elections.
It was an important first step, but our work is not done.
The real test, however, will be not so much on how we vote in the
next few minutes on some resolution here, but whether in the coming
days we are willing to pass legislation to fill in the gaps that are
left vacant as a result of our inability to get more done with the HAVA
bill.
I believe we can do it. We did it in the last Congress. We ought to
do it in this one, so we never again have questions raised about the
legitimacy of the election process or results, in any State, of a
Federal election.
I look forward to working with my colleagues, and the civil rights,
disability, language minority, and voting rights communities, as well
as State and local election officials, to continue our work to ensure
that all Americans have access to the most fundamental right in a
representative democracy: the right to cast a vote and have that vote
counted.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a Senator who has not spoken who
wishes to speak on this matter?
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today as a Member of the body
who recently was sworn in for his second term. In my first 6 years as a
Senator of the United States in this institution, I faced challenges
unprecedented in this country's history.
While we have made tremendous progress making our Nation more secure,
increasing America's competitiveness in the global marketplace, and
upholding the Federal Government's promise to seniors by enacting a
prescription drug benefit through Medicare, we still have serious
problems confronting our Nation.
On November 2, voters across this Nation chose their Government that
will face these forthcoming challenges. The voters of Ohio and our
Nation chose President George W. Bush. Even with a recount in Ohio,
President Bush won my State by over 118,000 votes. As a Republican from
Cleveland who has been reelected as a Republican from Cleveland,
elected to Federal, State, county, and municipal offices, I am living
proof Ohioans know how to count ballots and, more importantly, we count
fairly.

(Disturbance in the Visitors Gallery.)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will be order in the galleries,
please. The Sergeant at Arms will remove people from the gallery if
there is no order in the gallery.
Mr. VOINOVICH. It is clear that those who persist in beating a dead
horse are attempting to create uncertainty where none exists. That is
why I am so disappointed that this body is squandering its time playing
Monday-morning quarterback when the result of Ohio's Presidential
election is clear. President George W. Bush won my home State and its
20 electoral votes.
Frankly, I am proud of how the election went in Ohio. Hundreds of
thousands of new voters took part in their democracy this past
November, increasing Ohio's voter participation rate to 72 percent, up
from 64 percent in 2000. Unfortunately, prior to November 2,
unsubstantiated allegations were being made about the electoral process
in Ohio. But, at the end, on election day, and at the end of the
recount, Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and the bipartisan
election boards across the State did a tremendous job to ensure that
the election was fair and the results were without question. I want to
publicly applaud the good work of those dedicated public officials.
It is time to put this election to rest. Editorial boards from Ohio
newspapers, many of which endorsed Senator Kerry, agree as well. The
so-called recount effort is a circus that needs to pack up and leave
town, is what one of them said.
The Akron Beacon Journal, a newspaper that endorsed Senator Kerry,
stated on December 24:

The allegations being thrown around are of the flimsiest
nature. . . . Not one shred of evidence has been presented to
show that Ohio's strictly bipartisan system of running
elections was manipulated. There isn't any.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, on December 15:

Ohio's bipartisan elections system makes the kind of GOP
conspiracy that some allege all but impossible to execute.
Every county board of elections consists of two Democrats and
two Republicans. So, when (Jesse) Jackson and other national
Democrats question Ohio's outcome, they demean their own
allies.

William Anthony Jr., the African American who chairs both the
Franklin County Democratic Party and its election board, has been
personally stung by Jackson's slander. ``Why would I sit there,'' Mr.
Anthony said, ``and disenfranchise my own community?''
The Columbus Dispatch on December 12, 2004, states:

[John] Kerry understands that Bush legitimately won the
election, which was why he conceded on November 3rd. Those
who claim that Ohio's vote was rigged have produced nothing
that approaches credible evidence.

An editorial that appeared on Tuesday, January 4, just this week, in
my hometown newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, said:

The 176 Democrats who sit on Ohio's county election boards
pondered their jurisdictions' results, accepted their
subordinates' good work, and are turning their energies
toward the future.

Across the country, people are moving forward after nearly 2 years of
a continuous political campaign for the Presidency.
This country deserves to be able to put this undisputed election to
rest. We need to stop wasting time and move on to the serious issues
facing our Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any Senator who has not spoken
who wishes to speak?
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, realizing that I have the 5-minute
allocation, I make a parliamentary inquiry about where we are. If there
are no further speakers, is the Chair going to be prepared to put the
question so that there would be a recorded vote?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays have been ordered and
the question will be placed before the body.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think the case has been made. I think this
was an unfortunate procedure. This process which we have been through
was an inauspicious and unfortunate beginning of our session. I hope it
does not have a lasting negative impact. But the Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer, made her case, others have responded, and I
don't think it merits any further response. I, therefore, think we
should be prepared to vote.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 204 years ago, Thomas Jefferson took
the oath of office as President of the United States in this very
Capitol. He was the first President ever to do so. As he walked from a
boardinghouse on Pennsylvania Avenue toward this building on the
morning of his inauguration, he must have marveled at what was about to
take place.
For the first time in American history, power was changing hands from
one party--the Federalists--to the other, the Democratic-Republicans.
John Adams willingly left office. No shots were fired, and no monarchs
were hanged. Unlike their brethren in Europe, Americans, under our
glorious Constitution, had mastered the peaceful transfer of authority
from one faction to another. Jefferson called his election the
``revolution of 1800,'' brought about ``by the rational and peaceful
instruments of reform, the suffrage of the people.''
But America's tradition of this peaceful transfer of power is now
being challenged.

[[Page S56]]

The obstruction of the counting of the electoral vote undermines the
tradition that Jefferson and Adams established. By blocking this vote
when there is no possibility whatsoever of overturning the result, the
legitimacy of our republican form of government is questioned. I am
sure that is not the intention of my colleagues who have forced us to
debate this. Yet it is undoubtedly the result.
I understand that a minority of a minority protests the presidential
vote in the State of Ohio. But President Bush has indisputably won that
State by over 118,000 votes, and the votes have been counted twice.
Some of my colleagues have claimed that, even though they agree that
President Bush has won Ohio, they must take this opportunity to speak
about the need for electoral reform. I submit that hijacking a
presidential election to use as a personal soapbox is shameful.
Electoral reform may very well be desirable--for as long as people
administer elections, elections will be imperfect. There will always be
some irregularities, most due to innocent mistake, some to outright
fraud. We should absolutely do everything possible to combat this.
But if electoral reform is needed, Senators should introduce
legislation. They should not obstruct a legitimate count of the
electoral votes where there is an unequivocal victor. They should not
trample on the proud republican government our Founding Fathers
bequeathed us. They should not mock the beautiful concept that
sovereignty lies with the people, while our troops are fighting and
dying to plant that concept in the soil of Iraq.
Even the junior senator from Massachusetts has not endorsed the
radical scheme that a minority of a minority has unleashed on us today.
In an e-mail to supporters yesterday, Senator Kerry said that he would
not participate in this petulant protest but, rather, will propose
legislation to address perceived deficiencies in our electoral system.
This is the only proper route to take, and history will applaud Senator
Kerry for disavowing what is happening here today.
This is an ignominious beginning to the 109th Congress. Last month I
spoke about the desire on this side of the aisle to work with our
colleagues in the other party to get things done for the American
people in a spirit of bipartisanship. I'm still holding onto that hope.
I appeal to cooler heads on the other side of the aisle: Don't let a
fraction of your number march you down a dead end.
The words that we say here today amount to little against the fact
that in 2004, the President won an overwhelming victory in Ohio and 30
other States, and received 286 electoral votes. Years from now, that
fact will still be obvious. I hope that the damage done from this
assault on our traditions is not.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any Senator who has not spoken
who wishes to speak on this issue?
If not, the question is, Shall the objection submitted by the
gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Tubbs Jones, and the Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer, be sustained?
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Allen), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Craig), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Texas (Ms. Hutchison), the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from
Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Thomas).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. Kyl), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) would have
voted ``nay''.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Bingaman), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 74, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 1, Joint]

YEAS--1

Boxer

NAYS--74

Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--25

Akaka
Allen
Bayh
Bingaman
Bunning
Burns
Chafee
Corzine
Craig
Ensign
Feinstein
Frist
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
Murkowski
Murray
Shelby
Thomas
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is not sustained.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will notify the House of the
action of the Senate, informing that body that the Senate is now ready
to proceed to joint session with further counting of the electoral vote
for President and Vice President.

____________________