|
A friend of mine sent me a copy of this letter she sent to F. James Sensenbrenner. I felt it stated the case for a judiciary investigation so well I felt compelled to share it with everyone (with her permission of course.)
F. James Sensenbrenner
Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
2449 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515-4905
January 24, 2005
Dear Judge Sensenbrenner,
I write you today to address a matter that concerns the entire nation and is central to sustaining the democratic principles upon which our great country rests. I apologize for the length of this missive and hope you will bear with me to the end: this is a serious matter that requires all of our time and attention, and is not easily addressed in a paragraph or two.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has been at the forefront of a growing
contingent of senators and representatives whose constituencies express grave concerns about unusually high incidences of voting irregularities, spoiled and/or miscast ballots, unconscionably long waits at polling places and other obstacles preventing voters in many states, and particularly in the state of Ohio, from casting ballots in the most recent presidential election. While arguments have been made to suggest that the issues at hand fall under state jurisdiction, Mr. Conyers¹ report does point to potential violations not only of state laws, but federal; regardless, the election of the president of the United States MUST be a matter of federal, nationwide concern.
On January 6, 2004, Sen. Boxer joined Representatives Tubbs-Jones, Jesse Jackson Jr., and 27 additional representatives from voting districts throughout the country to contest Ohio¹s electoral college ballots. When the House and Senate met in their own chambers to debate, Senators Clinton, Wyden, and others advanced cogent arguments for the need to insure the integrity of our elections. As Senator Feingold stated in the Senate Chambers on Jan. 6 ³enough questions have been raised to justify a thorough examination by Congress and the administration.² As Senator Wyden stated ³when hundreds of thousands of Americans feel they have been disenfranchised, I don¹t think their concerns ought to be swept under the rug.² Ultimately, Senator Inouye gets to the heart of the matter in his written statement for the Congressional record: ³Our citizens must believe their vote will count. At a time when we are risking lives of our service men and women to spread democracy throughout the world, we cannot ignore the
threats to the democratic process here at home.² This is not about winners and losers; it is, as Senator Clinton stated, about ³the concern of many people about whether we can assure the continuity of our democratic process by ensuring the consent of the governed and the acceptance of the results of elections.²
Though these issues have been portrayed as everything from ³sore loser
syndrome² to the ranting of a fringe group of ³conspiracy theorists,² the base of voters demanding an investigation and an explanation for the myriad anomalies in this election is substantial and extremely diverse--as the elected officials who spoke out clearly are aware. An increasingly organized, broad-based and determined grass roots effort is currently concentrated on securing an investigation of the election procedures followed in the 2004 election and into potential violations of state and federal law.
It is a rather sad state of affairs when high-ranking elected officials are dismissed by the press, but it is even more disheartening to see them belittled by colleagues in Congress‹because these elected officials speak not to express their personal views, they speak on behalf of their constituencies. Their voices are our voices. When, for example, Sec. of State Blackwell dismisses Mr. Conyers¹ efforts as he has done, he is not disrespecting Mr. Conyers as an individual, but as a representative of this constituency. The same is true of Tom DeLay, who dismissed Rep. Tubbs¹ petition by stating that it ³is not justice but noise² and further dismissed
the entire body of 29 representatives as the ³X-files wing² of the
Democratic party. Mr. DeLay derided the whole debate as an ³assault against the institutions of our representative democracy,² as an ³insane morality play² and charged representatives who were clearly and undeniably acting at the explicit request of their constituencies with ³poisoning the democratic process² and presenting ³frivolous petitions.²
This is an outrage because these representatives and senators were PROMPTED and ENCOURAGED by VOTERS to bring forth the petition, and most of us are not the rabid left-wing radicals the press parades before mainstream America expressing their outrage in lewd gestures directed at political opponents or whacked-out rants aired on late-night national newscasts such as ³Nightline.²
Œ
We are doctors, lawyers, professors, high school teachers and soccer moms. We are computer scientists, systems analysts, business owners, publicists, directors of public and private institutions. We are grandmothers, bus and cab drivers, city employees; we are soldiers and wives with children. What we have in common with the protesters, the so-called ³conspiracy theorists² AND with those legislators who spoke out on January 6 is that we believe there is more than sufficient evidence of irregularities to merit investigation. We, the people, deserve an explanation and we demand an investigation. Our concerns cannot be dismissed as scripts in an insane morality play or an X-files re-run. If our concerns are ³frivolous,² that renders ALL of you in the House and Senate not merely ³frivolous,² but utterly superfluous. If our concerns are frivolous, what does that say about
your jobs and what, pray tell, have we hired you to do?
We do not know whether the anomalies were the result of criminal wrongdoing, what we do know is that they were widespread and extraordinary‹as the press and the public are gradually beginning to concede‹the sum of documented irregularities was not (or should not have been) ³business as usual² (if it was, all the more cause for alarm!). These problems demand investigation.
Since the election, we have come to nearly unanimous agreement that serious election reform is needed to restore public confidence in the system. But we cannot make changes to the system without knowing EXACTLY where the problems lie. Without an investigation, we cannot get to the bottom of it. The only way to fix the problem is to ascertain through a thorough investigation the nature of the problem. Without this information, we have no basis for drafting election reform that will effectively restore public confidence.
There can be no doubt that public confidence in our electoral process has been severely shaken‹if not shattered‹by the two most recent presidential elections. I cannot offer you any statistics: I can only speak from my own experience in my own rather broad circle of acquaintances, associates, colleagues and friends: there is no one I know‹not at the university, nor in the commercial and university presses I work for, not my physician, nor my dentist, nor the parents of the children I teach, who does not agree that there is at least reason to question the results of this election. No one. And believe me, Mr. Sensenbrenner, yes, I have asked. Since the election,I have spoken with almost everyone I know about this.
So what¹s a handful of no-confidence voters in the greater scheme of things? Not much. The problem, Mr. Sensenbrenner, is that I¹m not the only one writing to relay the sentiment of a few hundred voters. There are thousands of others like me. And even if there are only a thousand more, and those thousand each know another hundred: how many no-confidence voters does it take to consider the integrity of the process endangered enough to merit an investigation that will restore confidence by assuring those voters everything was on the ³up and up²‹and if it was not, by pursuing every available avenue in bringing the perpetrators to light and to justice?
You are in a unique position to unilaterally set the wheels of justice in motion. I urge you to support the efforts of John Conyers and many‹ perhaps millions more‹ to investigate the matters outlined in Mr. Conyers report and any others as may arise in the course of that investigation. Sec. of State Blackwell¹s ongoing stonewalling of the matter is sufficient reason to initiate and support a federal investigation‹ in this case, the state has too much to lose and is too embroiled in myriad conflicts of interest to effectively restore public confidence. This is clearly a matter for the House Judiciary Committee and I urge you to make this a priority.
Kind Regards,
Dr. Lilian Friedberg
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(664 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
