To help PDA continue this work, please become a Sustaining Donor.

What The Election Challenge Means

Vol. 2, No. 1--Pre-Summit, January 2005

by David Swanson

Thirty-three Members of the US House of Representatives, and one all-important Senator -- one more than four years ago -- voted not to accept Ohio's 20 electoral votes for George Bush.

The final tally was 33 representatives opposed to certification of the Ohio electoral vote to 260 upholding the certification in the House and 1 opposed to 72 unopposed in the Senate. The challengers lost. What does it mean?

First, it's worth noting that more than one Senator took action. Barbara Boxer announced her intention to challenge the election on Thursday morning. By midday Senators Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barak Obama had let it be known that they would support Boxer. During the discussion in the Senate, Richard Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Edward Kennedy, Ron Wyden, Frank Lautenberg, and Tom Harkin joined the others in speaking in support of Boxer's challenge. And in the House, numerous members spoke, one after another, until the time was up, and the number voting for the challenge jumped to 33 from the 8 that had been known early in the day.

Yet, those looking for as strong as possible a challenge were disappointed. All of the Democratic Senators except Boxer voted to support certification, including those who had spoken originally in support of Boxer's challenge. And one Democratic Senator, Mark Dayton, actually rose and spoke against the challenge. Several Senators and Congress Members spoke in support of the challenge but said they were not questioning Bush's victory. (The election system is broken, but the election system worked -- a notion that makes political sense to some if logical sense to few.) Not a single Republican joined the Democrats in either chamber. The certification of the vote was not stopped. Nothing was changed.

Or was it? I would suggest that the following things have been changed:

1. The topic of election fraud has been forced into the corporate media. Reporters wanting to write about it now have a "hook." They can report on it now in the way they could have two months ago if Senator John Kerry hadn't crawled under his bed to hide. Sure, much of the media today treated the story as one of "political theater" and "grandstanding Democrats," but until now the story had not been there at all. Now the Democrats have the opportunity to explain why fighting for democracy is the only decent thing to do, even when success seems unlikely.
2. We also have solid evidence that a political party can challenge an election without causing national trauma of the sort Kerry tried to "protect" us from by conceding. Most Americans are not now in agony over the tensions felt on January 6th in Congress.
3. We have demonstrated that a grassroots movement of African Americans, the disenfranchised, and progressives can mobilize around an issue completely and purposefully ignored by the media and move US Senators to act. The reason Barbara Boxer stood tall in 2005, while not even Paul Wellstone would do so four years ago, is that four years ago there was no massive grassroots lobbying effort. Nobody was holding "Boxer Rebellion" demonstrations at Boxer's or Wellstone's offices four years ago. There were no hearings and bus rides, telephone and fax campaigns, nothing like what we've seen for the past two months. We also lacked the leadership that Congressman John Conyers has shown, but Conyers will be the first to say he couldn't have done this without a movement behind him. The rally Thursday morning across from the White House was a celebration of success against the odds, of accomplishment in the face of scorn and ridicule with only justice and determination to keep people going. There will be momentum coming out of this for supporters of democracy all over this country.
4. A coalition is emerging and has begun to feel its power. Cliff Arnebeck of Alliance for Democracy and Common Cause Ohio told me on the morning of the vote that the way the Cleveland AFL-CIO worked with public interest groups and with Black civil rights groups on this issue is matched by the way the Ohio state AFL-CIO is working with these groups in opposition to a Republican proposal in Ohio to eliminate campaign finance limits. "Labor," Arnebeck said, "is one of the three key parts of a coalition including civil rights (i.e., the NAACP and Rainbow Push) and public interest activists (i.e., Common Cause) that must be built nationally. Every organization has its own selfish interests. But the labor union movement stands for democracy and not for benefiting a small elite, but for the vast majority -- not for this CEO club. It's going to come together. This will revitalize all three movements."
5. Today ended any remaining credibility for another presidential nomination for Kerry -- and probably for any other senators who did not voice their support for Barbara Boxer's challenge. Those who did not speak today will have to campaign against that record, as Kerry campaigned against his vote for Bush's war. The Democrats have begun to emerge as a second party in what has often seemed a one-party or duopolistic system. More power to them. It's up to us to keep this ball rolling by urging aggressive action on election reform and all other issues. The Democrats have started to copy Republican brashness. If they can cease copying Republican policy positions, there may be hope for them yet. Senator Reid announced that he would introduce an election reform bill in a few days.

Call Reid's office. Thank him for what he did. Ask him to think big and write the bill he wants, not the bill he thinks the Republicans will accept.

Back to Index