{news} CTGP Executive Committee endorses letter to US senators asking them to refuse certification of the November 2 presidential vote

Tue Jan 4 00:06:44 EST 2005

Per action of the Executive Committee of the Connecticut Green Party, the Connecticut Green Party has endorsed the 
letter to the senators below.  I have notified Eli Beckerman of this decision.
--Ed DuBrule, CTGP secretary
---------------------------------
Below find
--a letter to several senators concerning the November 2004 presidential elections
--an e-mail from Eli Beckerman requesting that the CTGP endorse this letter
--information about Congressman John Conyer's efforts on this matter
    Congress is to consider this matter on January 6.
-----------------------------------
Coalition Against Election Fraud of Massachusetts

c/o Truth in Elections

49 Francesca Ave.,

Somerville, MA 02144

617-625-3166

econhmnrts at aol.com

December 19, 2004

Dear Senators Boxer, Byrd, Dayton, Harkin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Obama, Snow and Schumer: 

The ideal of one person, one vote and that everyone's vote is counted has been deeply cherished in the United States of America since the Anti-Slavery Movement, the Women's Suffrage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement and the expansion of voting to young people.  The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections have made it clear that this precious cornerstone of American democracy has been destroyed.  

We the undersigned, respectfully request that you take action as a Senator to recognize that the November 2, 2004 presidential election was fraught with voting violations, misconduct of some highly placed election officials, tampering, voter suppression, interference targeted at communities of people of color, students, and low-income people - all of which has raised suspicions in many minds that this was not a free, fair and honest election.

Given the widespread use of electronic voting machines, which are especially liable to malfunction and fraud and leave no trace of how they work nor what data they receive, it is not possible to perform recounts in many states.  Hundreds of stories on malfunctions of electronic voting machines and central tabulation machines are appearing in regional news media.  

Papers and sworn testimonies by experts state that the chances of the exit polls giving such  divergent results from the official tallies are almost a statistical impossibility. Nor is it statistically conceivable that practically all the reported malfunctions and errors would give the advantage to the same candidate.  Furthermore, statistical analysis reveals that even the popular vote victory may turn out to be false. 

To preserve democracy in the United States of America, we ask that you be open to the concerns of large numbers of Americans.  Almost 57,000 complaints have thus far been filed about this election process.  Recounts are being demanded in several states. In the critical states of Ohio and Florida, hard evidence of improprieties is accumulating daily, almost always in the same direction and substantial enough to be outcome-determinative.

In Ohio, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who is avowedly partisan as the Co-Chair for the Bush/Cheney campaign, has used his official powers illegally to hinder the recount process in Ohio in many ways.  He has also refused to cooperate with the Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in its hearing headed by Representative Conyers. One example of many equally egregious problems in the Ohio election was a severe shortage of voting machines in precincts of people of color and students at colleges, leading to waits of up to 10 hours for voters to cast their ballot. 

We call on you to review the evidence. We are asking you to be our voice.  We think this is crucial for the future of democracy and this country and we hope you will respond to our plea.  

We are keenly aware that no Senator was willing to stand with the Representatives of the Congressional Black Caucus in their challenge to the presidential election of 2000.  In 2004 the evidence of fraud is systemic, stronger, more widespread and believed by millions of Americans.  We urge you to be courageous by taking leadership and refusing to certify the results of the presidential election of 2004.  We also urge you to voice open support for any formal objections from the House of Representatives and to sign with them if any House members challenge the 2004 presidential election. 

Sheila Parks

Deirdre Doran

Ellen Stone

Dinah Starr

Maureen Carey

Janet Poole

Simone Charpentier

Alice Carter

Diane Lopez

Dotty Gaydosh

Suzanne Belote Shanley

Brayton Shanley

-----------------------------------

e-mail received 12/29/04:
Dear Connecticut Greens,

I am writing to ask whether it is possible for the
Green Party of CT to endorse the attached letter
to US Senators, asking them to refuse certification
of the November 2nd vote. This letter was drafted by
the recently formed Coalition Against Election Fraud
(www.caef.us). We hope to meet with Senator Kennedy
this week, and it would be great if we can take a list
of endorsing groups.

As you are aware, the Green Party and Green Presidential
candidate David Cobb are playing a vital role in the
Ohio recount and other efforts to expose election fraud
and systemic voting violations. If we can get an objection
to the certification of the vote from any state (requiring
a Senator to join House Democrats), then there  will be up to
two hours of debate in both houses on voting violations and
we can finally break the media silence.

Many thanks,
Eli Beckerman
Somerville, MA
www.caef.us
--------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Allen" <nallen at acadia.net>
To: <natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org>
Cc: <usgp-media at gp-us.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:49 PM
Subject: [usgp-media] Conyers to challenge election...one Senator needed
(800 numbers to call)

Numbers to call Senators - especially Senator Robert Byrd
1-800-839-5276
1-877-762-8762

Letter from Congressman Conyers to US Senators
Calling for Congressional Debate on 2004 Elections
December 30, 2004
Dear Senator Boxer (sent to all US Senators),
             As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral
votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a
joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M.  I and a number of House
Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to
numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of
which appear to violate both federal and state law.  I am hoping that you
will consider joining us in this important effort to debate and highlight
the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters.  I will
shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many
irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation
into the Ohio presidential election.
             3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states
are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections,
if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least
one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same
shall be received."1.  The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and
without argument, the ground thereof."2  When an objection has been properly
made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws
from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the
objection.  "No votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until
the [pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of."3  3 U.S.C. §17
limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time
no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes.  Both
the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise,
the challenged vote or votes are counted.4
             Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for
objecting to the counting of electoral votes.  The language of  3 U.S.C. §15
suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not
"regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s)
was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors
have been presented to Congress from the same State.
             Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the
requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state
electors.5  In the 2000 election several Members of the House of
Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of
Florida.  However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the
objection was not "received."  In addition, there was no determination
whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act.
However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed its own
procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a
valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the
House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until
"disposed of".
             Please contact me at 225-5126 to appraise me of your thoughts
on this important matter.  If your staff has questions, that may be
forwarded to Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of my Judiciary Committee staff at
225-6504.  Thank you.
      Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20050104/c36800bb/attachment.html>