Postponing an Election

I haven't yet read the original Newsweek article about the possible need to postpone a federal election in the event of a terrorist attack. I have read several articles and much commentary on it. Much of the sentiment is best epitomized by the quote from Nancy Pelosi in this Washington Times article: "Instead of focusing on changing the date of the election, the Department of Homeland Security should focus on reducing the risk of an attack."

I find the idea of mucking around with elections to be a very grave matter and I absolutely reject any suggestion that this authority should be vested in a single individual or outlined with ambiguity. But I can't personally dismiss the suggestion out of hand.

Much of the criticism of the inquiry trivializes the seriousness of the issue at the core of the suggestion. The U.S. Constitution prescribes the following:
Art. II §1 Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

If a catastrophic attack were to befall a major U.S. city on an election day, necessitating an evacuation, what would happen to the results of the election? Two major states of America, Illinois and New York, possess a conservative hinterland and large predominately liberal cities. Elections in Missouri, Florida, Washington, or Oregon could easily be swung by evacuations of Saint Louis, Miami, Seattle, or Portland. What would be the just response to such a scenario?

Suspend the elections within the state for the day and hold it again later? Would it be conscionable for the election outcome to hinge on a belated retry of New York state's election? Would it be conscionable to decide an election based upon partial returns reflecting only the regions of a state which would not be materially impacted by a major attack? Would it be appropriate to have a national "do-over"?

This isn't an issue to be resolved lightly. It's hard to imagine a second assault on the scale of the one we've already experienced. But it is no longer inconceivable.

This is an issue that all Americans of all affiliations should actually take quite seriously. To some extent, it seems absurd that it's only hit the public discourse today... though I confess I've never seriously considered it myself before now.

Based on what I've heard so far, too many aren't weighing the issues with the gravity that it should demand. It's easy to make a conspiratorial assertion that the very notion is a power-grab by the Bush Administration or to take comfort in the platitude that terrorists cannot disrupt our democratic process. It's easy to give the non-answer of Nancy Pelosi that we should just ensure it never happens.

Such responses strike me as inadequate. I can't pretend to have a ready answer to this question. Whatever answer would be proposed would need to have strong safeguards against abuse. But I can't take this issue so lightly as some seem to.

To give some heft to the discourse I'm talking about, here's a snarky example from a journalist I respect - Josuah Micah Marshall:

There certainly is an unseemly eagerness on the part of the White House to canvass ideas (embodied in legislation) for a possible delay of the November election in the event of a terrorist attack, as this and other articles explain. The rationale is that we need to have some policy in place for a possible election postponement before some precipitating event actually occurs. But my understanding is that we already have a policy in place on postponements: i.e., we don't do them.

Added to my suspicion is the increasingly common refrain from the White House that the Madrid bombing was responsible for Spanish 'appeasement' in Iraq and the obvious subtext that the answer to any future terrorist attack would be to 'not give in', i.e. reelect President Bush.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly is on target in this discussion. He's got readers too, so you can get a good cross-section of responses on this topic:

What's intriguing, though, is that the paranoia is so thick that no one is bothering to talk about whether this is a good idea on a substantive level. Should a nationwide election be cancelled in the event of a major terrorist attack? And if so, should a federal commission be allowed to make the call?