Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Dayton on Senate Rules Committee; pledges to demand election reform

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:41 PM
Original message
Dayton on Senate Rules Committee; pledges to demand election reform
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 07:50 PM by Carolab
Got this first issue of the "Dayton Digest" newsletter in my e-mail. He is my senator and I have already begun working with his office locally. I encourage anyone with a senator in a position to "make change" begin an ongoing dialogue in your state.

Issue 1
Jan. 2004

Welcome to the Dayton Digest!

Happy New Year! This month we are unveiling the innaugural edition of the Dayton Digest, our periodic email newsletter where you can find information on Senator Dayton's work for Minnesotans, updates from the campaign trail, and ways that you can get involved and make your voice heard.

From Washington

Dayton Calls for Immediate Electoral Reform
In the wake of the second consecutive Presidential election that left many voters feeling disenfranchised, Mark vowed to use his position on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees election law, to demand immediate election reform. In a speech on the floor of the Senate, Mark pledged to fight for this legislation over the next 2 years and called on his colleagues to support measures that "safeguard this process so that, in fact and in perception, the American people know they had the right to vote, the chance to vote, and their vote was counted, and that the will of the majority ... was faithfully, honestly, and accurately carried out by everyone responsible for doing so."

Dayton Supports Measure to Encourage Tsunami-Relief Donations
Senator Mark Dayton is a cosponsor of a bipartisan measure designed to spur even greater donations to relief organizations working in the areas devastated by last week's earthquake and tsunami. Under this measure, people would be able to choose to retroactively claim deductions for January donations on their 2004 tax returns.
Read More:

Senator Dayton Visits Iraq

Senator Dayton joined Senator Lieberman for a trip to the Middle East right at the end of December. Mark received a sobering assessment of the situation in Iraq, stating that "the sense is that the insurgency has become more sophisticated and advanced in its planning and execution." Dayton, who voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, has been out front to make sure our troops have the support they need. Building on his strong record as an advocate for veterans, Sen. Dayton has also taken the Administration to task for not doing their utmost to ensure the brave men and women in Iraq have the armor and equipment they need.
Read Mark's full assessment of his trip:

On the Issues

Medicare Rx Drug Program
A longtime advocate for health care issues, Senator Dayton now explains why the recently-passed Medicare reform bill provides inadquate protections for seniors trying to cope with the ever-rising cost of prescription drugs.
Read More:

Social Security
President Bush's plan to privatize social security has been a much talked about policy initiative. Mark is talking about it too, but what he has to say is quite different from what the Republicans would like you to hear.
Read More:

Get Involved!

Sign Up to Volunteer
To help win in 2006 we will need thousands of volunteers all over Minnesota. If you want to be involved in this massive grassroots movement please sign up to volunteer now and we will make sure to contact you as volunteer opportunities become available in your area.
Sign up today at: /

Make a Contribution
Help Mark start the year off right, please consider making a new contribution to the campaign.
Make a secure online contribution or find contribution mailing address at: /

Do not reply to this message. Please contact us by using our online contact form at /

Contributions to Mark Dayton for MN are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes.

Paid for by Mark Dayton for Minnesota - - (612) 824-9800
3010 Hennepin Ave South, PO Box 297
Minneapolis, MN 55408

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, click here
Powered by NGP Software, Inc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Salomonity Donating Member (106 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. what if?
Suppose we get an elections bill that says "all state voting machines must use voter-verified paper trails". What happens if states ignore it? By the constitution, states determine how to conduct elections--this isn't a federalism argument, the constitution flatly reserves this to the states.

You don't dare allow congress to refuse to seat members from states that don't use voting machines you like--firstly, it's unconstitutional, second, New York doesn't use such machines and can't buy new quick enough--Sen. Clinton will be reelected on lever machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. These will be among the issues addressed as we continue working with him.
Also, see this posted in the DU Minnesota forum:

Take a look at S.1980, from the 108th Congress, titled the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003. It was created by Graham, Clinton, and, yes, Boxer.

Six cosponsors:

Sen. Dayton, Mark
Sen. Hollings, Ernest F.
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R.
Sen. Nelson, Bill
Sen. Schumer, Charles E.
Sen. Wyden, Ron

Now, take a look at Section 4 of the bill:


(a) IN GENERAL- Section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:


`(A) VOTER-VERIFICATION IN GENERAL- The voting system shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system, as further specified in subparagraph (B).


`(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record, each individual paper record of which shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter at the time the vote is cast, and preserved within the polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved within the polling place on Election Day for later use in any manual audit.

`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system before the permanent record is preserved for use in any manual audit.

`(iii) The voter verified paper record produced under subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall be available as an official record and shall be the official record used for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.


`(i) No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

`(ii) No voting system shall contain any wireless communication device at all.

`(iii) All software and hardware used in any electronic voting system shall be certified by laboratories accredited by the

Commission as meeting the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii).'.

Obviously, as his remarks in the Senate on Thursday show, he did not understand the purpose of the challenge. Many DUers, in fact, think the same thing: that the objection was for the purpose of changing the outcome, not ensuring the right to vote and a paper trail or ballot. Why didn't he know this? I'm not sure. Was it the fault of his constituents, us, the ones actually following this, who knew what the challenge was about, but didn't contact him because we didn't think he would do anything? Possibly.

However, it's easy to see that Dayton "gets" the problem of electronic voting, even if he does not believe that there was widespread fraud that would could change the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. How do you feel about Dayton's comments on 1/6/05?
Those of us watching the electoral college challenge hearings here in Tennessee were very disappointed that any Democrat would speak so dismissively about the Conyers report and the other evidence of election fraud/theft that we are now drowning in. How do you feel about his statements on 1/6/05, as one of his constituents? Other Minnesotan DUers out there should also weigh in on this question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I heard him say some good stuff.
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 08:02 PM by anamandujano
While I was disappointed he wasn't standing with Boxer, I did hear him say (paraphrase) "this is something that's not nice to say, using the word liar, we were lied to about Iraq."

I was switching back and forth between the senate and house so didn't hear the whole thing. It took me a couple of days to realize that he had said something very important. It was courageous and he seemed very nervous.

PS--I'm not a constituent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I believe I understand his position.
He was speaking to his concern of setting the wrong precedent, a precedent that could be turned to ill use in the future--possibly leading to complete disenfranchisement of voters in future "election decisions" made by the Congress. The lack of a compelling body of irrefutable evidence of fraud was, in his opinion, a problem. He wanted proof that Kerry would have won before objecting to the votes. I believe he was concerned that without that proof, the Republicans would not only have a heyday with the Democrats, but would use frivolous grounds for objecting to other elections in the future. Look what they've been doing with Gregoire's election, for instance. I believe he wanted to state his objections and get these concerns on the record and that is why he stood up to speak. He also wanted to state his concerns for the record about the need for election reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
m.standridge Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. well, Blanche Lincoln
is re-elected here. She has close affiliation with Hillary. There might be some "axis" there.
I keep/kept wracking my brain, trying to think of a way to use the Electoral-only victory for Kerry idea as a way to get Hillary to rally. And with her, Lincoln. In other words, though there is some data that Kerry won the Popular vote (the exit poll material), could it be Kerry could be a one-time Dem. candidate, and, with an Electoral-only victory, be "dumped" in 2008, even though he'd won in 2004 in the Electoral only, with this being some kind of "standard" the Dems would use that the GOP doesn't?

So many in the Democratic party--and possibly in the third party Left-- I fear, are more concerned about their own political futures, that they put that, a little, ahead of their concern for democracy, or slip into a little bit of wishful thinking about election rigging. It's as if they just think, if they act like nothing's happened, nothing's happened, or it's something that can be "managed."
I'm not sure this can be managed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 22nd 2018, 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC