Homeland Security: If Terror Strikes the Polls

A Qaeda attack is expected. So what happens if balloting is disrupted? The electoral chain of command

It's practically an article of faith among counterterrorism officials that Al Qaeda will try to hit the U.S. homeland in the run-up to the presidential election. As a result, federal authorities are at a heightened level of security not seen since the days after 9/11. On Sept. 24, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an extraordinary emergency order to the FBI's 56 field offices, giving bureau officials the power to commandeer federal agents from across the government to respond to a terror threat. This week FBI agents are stepping up surveillance of suspected extremists and poring over millions of bits of intelligence in search of clues about a potential attack. And on Election Day, antiterror command centers at the FBI and Homeland Security headquarters will be running 24/7. "[Al Qaeda] wants to strike a blow against everything we hold dear," says one senior law-enforcement official. "What better way than to attack democracy itself? It's coming."

But if an attack does come, who would decide what to do about the election? There are nearly 200,000 polling places across the country. By tradition and law, U.S. elections have always been administered at the state and local levels. Right now, in the event of an attack on Nov. 2, the federal government would not have the power to step in and postpone voting. Only states, counties or even cities could freeze balloting. (New York, on its own, decided to postpone primary voting on September 11, 2001.) The system flows from our federalist principles; dictators halt elections, not American presidents.


But in the age of global terror and instant communications, some experts argue that the federal government should have the option to postpone. If a series of bombings in polling places across one key state shuts down voting, at least temporarily, that could alter the outcome of the national race. Even if balloting were rescheduled, those voters would know the results elsewhere, which could taint an election. And what if panic spread to polling places around the country? In addition, because there are no national standards to determine whether elections should be put off, those decisions are left to state officials who are often active partisans (think Katherine Harris). The patchwork of rules could create chaos. In the end, confidence in the contest's outcome could be fatally undermined, some experts worry.

The question is whether the federal government can play a more central role without provoking age-old fears of martial law. Under the Constitution, Congress does have authority to regulate national elections, including setting dates. Some have argued that Congress could establish a commission that would have the authority to reschedule federal elections in the event of a national emergency. But lawyers question whether such power could be delegated to a panel of individuals. For now, in any case, the debate is academic. When DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge this summer urging contingency planning for the election in the event of an attack, he touched off a storm of outraged opposition. But Soaries does not regret raising the issue. "We have not had adequate discussions about 'what if' scenarios," Soaries says. Clearly the matter won't be settled before Nov. 2.

Daniel Klaidman
With Mark Hosenball
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.