http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0706-09.htm


Leading Women's NGOs Call for UN Election Observers in the US

WASHINGTON - July 6 - On Thursday, July 1, 2004, eight members of the US Congress, led by the Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30), sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for UN oversight of the US presidential elections in November. A copy of that letter is reproduced below. We are informed that there will be further sign-ons from members of Congress this week.

MADRE, the Women of Color Resource Center and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom support their efforts. We urge other organizations to support this courageous and historic request aimed at helping to protect the right of every person to vote as enshrined in human rights treaties ratified by the United States, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 25) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (article 5) not to mention the U.S. Constitution and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

To support the efforts of these members of Congress to ensure accountable, transparent, free and fair elections in November, contact WILPF at mdkent@wilpf.org to sign your organization onto a letter of support no later than July 12th. A copy of the letter is availabe at www.wilpf.org

* * * * *

Letter from Members of the U.S. Congress to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan Requesting Election Monitors to Assist with 2004 U.S. Presidential Election

July 1, 2004

The Honorable Kofi Annan, Secretary-General

United Nations

New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

We the undersigned Members of Congress hereby request the Electoral Assistance Division of the United Nations Department of Political Affairs to send election observers to monitor the presidential election in the United States scheduled for November 2, 2004. We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy.

As you may know, the 2000 presidential election was steeped in controversy. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan federal agency, investigated widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement and questionable practices in the state of Florida relating to the purging of names from voter registration lists, methods of balloting, and the independence of counting and certification procedures. In a report released in June 2001, the Commission found that the electoral process in Florida resulted in the denial of the right to vote for countless persons and further that the "disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters" and in poor counties.

Moreover, Florida was not the only state in which voters were wrongfully denied their right to vote and have their vote counted. Experts have concluded that over half of the votes that went uncounted nationwide during the last election were "cast by nonwhite voters." In Florida, the Commission found that black voters were "10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected" - a result that experts say is typical of states across the country. The election was finally determined by the Supreme Court which prevented further counting of the votes in what has been widely criticized as one of the most politicized and improper decisions in U.S. jurisprudence.

As the next Election Day approaches, there is more cause for alarm rather than less. In April of this year, the Commission issued a status report which found that despite promised nationwide reforms relating to voting equipment, voter list maintenance, pollworker training, election certification, and reinstatement of ex-felon voting rights, adequate steps have not been taken to ensure that a similar situation will not arise in the coming election. Rather, upon evaluating the current state of affairs, the Commission concluded "the potential is real and present for significant problems on voting day that once again will compromise the right to vote."

The right to vote, and have votes counted, in free and fair elections is a cornerstone of representative government. In addition to violating amendments 15, 19 and 26 of the U.S. Constitution, and laws adopted pursuant to it such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the events in Florida violated the right to vote as it is enshrined in several international instruments that the U.S. has either agreed to, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 21), or ratified, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 25) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (article 5).

As a member of the international community, we firmly believe in the importance of international human rights law and its applicability and relevance to the U.S. Given the deeply troubling events of the 2000 election and the growing concerns about the lack of necessary reforms and potential for abuse in the 2004 election, we believe that the engagement of international election monitors has the potential to expedite the necessary reform as well as reduce the likelihood of questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day.

In addition, we believe that international oversight is critical in this election not only because of the role the U.S. has in the world, but also because the issues related to the methodology of elections inside the United States, such as the use of electronic and paperless voting technology, are likely to have international impact. The danger that these methodologies could become a standard to be exported and emulated involves broader issues of democracy that should be of concern to the United Nations and the international community as a whole.

For all these reasons, we urge the UN to favorably consider this urgent request.

Sincerely,

Eddie Bernice Johnson (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/EBJElectionsUNMonitor2004PressConference.html) (TX-30) Member of Congress

Joseph Crowley (NY-07) Member of Congress

Raul Grijalva (http://www.house.gov/grijalva/press/press_releases/pr_070604.html) (AZ-07) Member of Congress

Danny K. Davis (IL-07) Member of Congress

Corrine Brown (http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/press108/pr040702.htm) (FL-03) Member of Congress

Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-14) Member of Congress

Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) Member of Congress

Michael M. Honda (CA-15) Member of Congress


At first I wondered about the credability of the source, so I double-checked it and provided links to those names I could confirm through their own press releases. I also found a secondary source (http://www.wilpf.org/section/wilpf_statements.htm).

I suppose it's about time. I really had very little faith in the actual results of the last election. It wasn't clear who should have won, but I do think that it was a bit sketchy that the deciding state was florida considering that Jeb Bush was (still is?) governor.

Perhaps we do need a taste of our own medicine, and we should allow an outside party to monitor this election. I need time to think about the ramifications though.

Excellent articles.

The reason UN should monitor US election? The powers that be (here) need to answer to someone other than themselves.

This is largely just a political ploy; most of those who signed it are those who have yelled the loudest because Gore wasn't named the winner. Had he been I assure you that they would have no concern at all about the votes not counted in Fla.

One word:

Diebold (http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf).

Anyone who has objectively examined that case understands the need for oversight of some form.

Further, even if these people are doing this as a political ploy and would be hypocritical about this if Gore had won, it does not mean that they are wrong now, that the need is without merit, or that their criticisms and suspicions of the 2000 election are not fairly leveled.

Stealing an Election (http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#4).

If it had happened in any other country we would not have recognized it as a legitimate election. But still... no.

If it had happened in any other country we would not have recognized it as a legitimate election. But still... no.
I agree with you but I am also curious to know why you feel that way.

I agree with you but I am also curious to know why you feel that way.

Because the UN is not a neutral party when it comes to US politics because A) We pretty much bankroll the entire organization and B) we all know who Kofi Annan wants to be president anyway. If we are going to have a neutral observer, we want them to actually BE neutral.

Excellent articles.

The reason UN should monitor US election? The powers that be (here) need to answer to someone other than themselves. The Tenth Amendment, I believe, provides you with an answer to whom the powers that be do answer to.*
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/index.html
*Can I mangle a sentence or what?

Because the UN is not a neutral party when it comes to US politics because A) We pretty much bankroll the entire organization and B) we all know who Kofi Annan wants to be president anyway. If we are going to have a neutral observer, we want them to actually BE neutral.
Justify that. You Americans Bankroll the UN? Who the fuck told you that? Prove it.

Prove it, or accept that the US is in debt to the UN for around 1 Billion dollars at last count.

Which they still refuse to repay.

Currently, the US owes the most to the U.N. -- a total of $1.9 billion. Many members of Congress want to pay our debt but others don't feel we should have to pay all of it.

The United States currently contributes about 25 percent of the U.N.'s general budget and some members of Congress call for changes at the U.N. before paying such a high price.
-source- (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/un.html) The UN system is financed in two ways: assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. In the case of the UN, the General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by national income statistics, along with other factors.

The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a 'ceiling' rate, setting the maximum amount any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000, the Assembly agreed to revise the scale of assessments to make them better reflect current global circumstances.

As part of that agreement, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25 to 22 percent; this is the rate at which the United States is assessed. The United States is the only member that is assessed this rate, though it is in arrears hundreds of millions of dollars;(see also United States and the United Nations) all other members' assessment rates are lower. Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany (9.82%), France (6.50%), the U.K. (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%) and Spain (2.53%).

Special UN programs not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP) are financed by voluntary contributions from member governments. In 2001, it is estimated that such contributions from the United States will total approximately $1.5 billion. Much of this is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations, but the majority is financial contributions.
-source- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; there are no current plans to pay these amounts.
-source- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations) 20202020202020202020

regardless of the sincerity of the parties involved, some monitoring of the election is better than none.
this election is extremely important. whatever integrity can be salvaged from our political system must be used to ensure that the votes will accurately represent the way people feel.

...whatever integrity can be salvaged from our political system must be used...
I think that ship sailed many, many, MANY moons ago.

I think that ship sailed many, many, MANY moons ago.

**sigh** i know. how sad.

I don't really view the U.N. as a neutral party either. It's funny how they're so interested in these supposed human rights violations here (if you're too dumb to punch a chad on a card, should you really be voting?) but what about the Iraqis under Saddam? What about the multitude of atrocities that he and his regime callously committed daily? Well, I guess it's a different story when you're illegaly cashing in under a dictator. *ahem French* Also, should I comment on all the wonderful UN support we've enjoyed during the rebuilding of Iraq.:rolleyes: If they want to assume this authority over us, maybe they should be more of a benefit for us. Bottom line: if it weren't for the U.S., the U.N. would be absolutely nothing.

-----
As for the U.S. owing money to the U.N.; we still pay way more than any other country. Period.