One question posed to White Press Secretary Jay Carney has real life ramifications — could Hurricane Sandy delay national elections set for Tuesday, Nov. 6?
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell took up the cause following the news conference and posted the question to Chuck Todd: “We’ve seen in the past situations where power is not restored, in our own region here, for days, for more than a week -- for 10 days. What happens if we get to election day and they don’t have power? Which you need for many of these election booths, for the voting booths, which you need for people to get to the polls. Is there any precedent for doing something such as postponing a national election?”
It poses an interesting senario. Sandy is taking a bead on the Northeast, which is an Obama stronghold. If the hurricane hits and takes out power for an extended period of time, it could hurt the president’s chances of defeating Mitt Romney.
Chuck Todd, NBC White House correspondent answered Mitchell’s question: “Well, look, elections are run by state and local officials. The federal government does not run the elections as it is. Look, there is some precedence to this. During 9/11, on 9/11, was the New York City mayoral race and they delayed everything. You know, it would have to be up to a local authority to do that but that local authority — I think, look, you’re going to be getting into provisional ballot issues.”
In 1845 Congress passed a law establishing that the day for choosing presidential electors would be every four years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Nothing short of an act of Congress would change the date. Unless, however, the president decides to issue an executive order.
Only once in recent history has an election been threatened. “The (George W.) Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack,” said a BBC report published on July 12, 2004.
Just a side note: No U.S. presidential election has ever been delayed or canceled. It would require an overwhelming emergency that makes it impossible to proceed with an election, such as a nuclear war.
Keith Hansen
Comments (23)
Add commentNo power
Isn't losing power, losing lives, losing homes considered an "overwhelming emergency?" Evidently not to some.
Since we are.....
Since we are totally dependent upon electricity for the voting machines, it would make sense to postpone the election until all of the polling places have their electricity restored.
We can do it the old
We can do it the old fashioned way if we have to,
Federal election would take an act of Congress.
There will always be something to postpone in some
part of the country. We shouldn't start a precedence..
They will work it out.
How about if the places that
How about if the places that ARE able to vote (business as usual) should vote on the normal day, but all election results remain sealed. Then, when power and transit are restored in the storm ravaged areas, they can set a day to vote and have their election then. Only after all areas have cast their votes, will any results be published (don't want a release of early results to skew the number of voters elsewhere).
I can understand that if electricity is out, people can still vote by candlelight with paper and pencil, BUT there is also transportation to consider. If people can't get to the polls because the subway system is out of service due to flooding and lack of electricity, it's not exactly fair to rule out large numbers of population who were planning to vote based on a natural disaster.
In the meantime, perhaps some polling places can be moved, and adequately advertised and measures can be taken to allow as much of the population to vote on Nov 6 as possible, while still making provisions for a late vote if needed.
BUT....I also think all political advertising should stop on November 6 even if some voting hasn't been completed. Folks should have their minds made up by then.
I know that the East has
I know that the East has generators.
I know that the East has generators.
"I know that the East has generators."
We could make sure that all of the Republican leaning precincts have a generator!
and when
And when Romney loses he will holler foul and say HIS votes weren't counted. I can hear it now. OkeyDokey's idea sounds fair!
Abraham Lincoln
President Lincoln set a great standard when the election of 1864 was held despite the fact our country stuggled in the midst of a great Civil War. He said at that time that even that could not and would not prevent a democratic nation from holding its election. I believe strongly in his belief that nothing short of national destruction should ever halt or postpone, nor cast any cloud over such an important event.
If you give the left a few more days
they'll just print out a few million more phoney votes. They got their vote early now don't let them vote late too. More of their voters are sneaking over the border every night.
Hi, Purposed: I disagree with every single post you
write (and I know you feel the same about me), but this is a good reference regarding "polls". I knew you were a "thinker" on this issue who'd appreciate it. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/douthat-the-polling-bi...
Take care,
bubbie yumbette
Now that Obama has Christie
campaigning for him, we might as well just dispense with the election and let him declare a mandate.
The shrub did!
cancel the election completely and declare himself king of USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g
Purposed
Before you put TOO much faith in those republicon forwarded emails, take a look here!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
Purposed
"...who cares how many executive orders?"
Then why bring it up in the first place?!?!?!
Purposed
"Snopes has been known for its bias for a long time."
So, only faux noise is credible???
Purposed
""Snopes has been known for its bias for a long time."
Also biased, I presume!!!
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/
(No subject)