Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Simon Spero <ses AT unc.edu>]

Phillip Rhodes wrote:

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/
>
> Now, who didn't see *that* coming? This is some seriously scary 
> stuff.  It's a small step from "delaying" the elections, to the 
> appointment of King George the II as permanent ruler.

Not particularly scary at this point; what it says is that the DOJ 
(correctly) don't believe that the executive branch has the power to 
delay elections at all;  it sounds like they're asking Congress to lay 
out the rules on what to do if the election cannot be conducted on the 
day scheduled.  In other words, they're taking steps to make sure that 
procedures don't have to be determined as events unfold, when the whole 
burden of decision would fall on the executive.

Having a well prepared set of plans for dealing with any attacks makes 
it less likely they'll be needed.

For example, if there's a strike on the East coast on election day 
before voting starts of sufficient magnitude to prevent large numbers of 
people voting, should polling be delayed nationwide? For just the 
affected state? For just the affected area?  If there's a revote, should 
it cover the whole state, or just those precincts where voting could not 
be conducted.

What should happen with absentee ballots?  If they haven't been counted, 
but aren't destroyed or contaminated, should they be counted as is? What 
about if they are destroyed or contaminated after having been counted?

What about if the strike is on the West coast, after polling has closed 
on the east coast but before polling has closed in the targeted region?  
What should happen if the targeted region does not have sufficient 
electoral college votes to affect the outcome of the presidential race 
after  all non targetted states are counted?

 Given what happened on 3/11, these aren't idle questions.  If you 
don't think that Congress should be addressing them, who do you want 
making the call?