Democracy’s Weakest Moment

“The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution fixes the date and time that a Presidential term ends and the next one begins: January 20 at noon. However, no constitutional provision specifies when the Presidential election must take place.

“How can that be? The answer is that, so far as the federal Constitution is concerned, there is no such thing as a Presidential election.

“Or, to put it more precisely, the Constitution does not envision a Presidential election in which ordinary citizens have a right to vote: Instead, Article II and the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution envision an election in the Electoral College — a body whose members are chosen on a state-by-state basis in accordance with rules set by the respective state legislatures.” — [Source: Michael C. Dorf @ Findlaw]

“If the Bush Administration’s intelligence can be believed, the 2004 presidential election, or the related democratic processes associated with the election, have been targeted by terrorists. Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge has repeatedly said, “Al Qaeda is moving forward with plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States aimed to disrupt our democratic process.”

“This raises the question of what the Bush Administration is (or isn’t) doing about it […] Remarkably, the Bush Administration — which should be taking a leadership position in protecting the democratic processes — is ignoring its own warnings about the problems […] Regrettably, I must report, that the Bush Administration has completely disregarded the need to protect the workings of our electoral process, which is highly susceptible to terror attacks. To assume that terrorist organizations do not understand our conspicuous weaknesses is foolish.

“One need not be an attorney or political scientist to see the problems. All that is needed is a cursory understanding of the relevant laws […]

“The Bush Administration has ignored all these problems — all of which have been on the table since 9/11. Why? It would be cynical to suggest that they believe they might politically benefit from any of these untoward events. But it might also be accurate.

“Politically, it is possible they might receive a short term gain from a terrorist attack - if it were seen as vindicating Bush’s aggressive stances, or if it simply triggered an upswell of patriotism that benefited the sitting President. While the Madrid train bombing influenced the election of an anti-war government, a U.S. equivalent (or worse) might have just the opposite effect. ” — [Source: John Dean @ Findlaw]