75-04-B5
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1975
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
N.H. Senate Contest[edit]
Transcript[edit]Should the voters elect U.S. Senators, or should the U.S. Senate appoint it's own members? I'll be right back. On November 5th last year, New Hampshire voters cast their ballots in a race for the United States Senate between Congressman Lewis Wyman, a Republican and John Durkin, a Democrat. The election night count showed a margin of 355 votes for Wyman. Under New Hampshire law, this made possible a recount based on the challenge of Mr. Durkin, to be conducted by the New Hampshire Secretary of State. The recount reversed the result, showing Durkin the winner by 10 votes. The law also provided that Wyman would be permitted to appeal his finding to the state's ballot law commission, a nonpartisan body. When the review was complete, the commission ruled Wyman the winner, by two votes. The decision was unanimous among the three members, two Republicans and one Democrat. Durkin's victory certification was rescinded and Wyman's forwarded to Washington. The case seemed closed. The process of New Hampshire law had run its course and no allegation of vote fraud had been made by either side. But Mr. Durkin wasn't satisfied. He challenged the constitutionality of the ballot law commission in the courts. They unanimously ruled against him finding the state's election laws completely legal. Durkin then decided to appeal the decision to the U.S. Senate, which has the right to, on the quote "qualifications" unquote of its members. The Senate accepted the appeal and his rules committee is now considering the matter. Think of what this means. The New Hampshire election law was not challenged before, in fact, Durkin used it in gaining his initial recount. When it was challenged, its constitutionality was upheld in the courts. Both sides agree the recounts were honestly done. To top it off, the Senate has never before accepted a challenge to a member seating, in the absence of charges of illegality. The Wyman-Durkin case is a first and not a very encouraging one. When the Senate gets into the business of deciding whether or not to ignore legal and constitutional elections, we'd all better ask our own senators for an explanation. On an almost straight party-line vote, the Senate agreed not only to review the election but to deny New Hampshire its seat pending the outcome. Since January 5th, the Granite State has been without one of its two senators, and the senate majority has made it clear that it won't accept the credentials of an interim senator, appointed by Governor Meldrum Thompson, even if his choice were to be former senator, Norris Cotton, who retired from office last year. The senate's majority has also rebuffed a compromise solution proposed by Governor Thompson and Congressman Wyman for a new election. This is a remarkable proposal to come from the man who legally won the seat. His opponent, Mr Durkin, has rejected the idea saying he prefers the decision of the Senate, controlled by his party, to that of the voters of New Hampshire. So far the senate majority, led by its whip Robert Byrd of West Virginia, has agreed. Unfortunately, that majority shows every sign of continuing its intense partisanship at the expense of constitutional precedent, the law, and fairness. A subcommittee of the Senate rules committee trying to put a facade of legality on this charade has been sifting through some 3,500 ballots which have already been legally certified. Someone once said that politics is the second oldest profession. I'm beginning to think it bears a resemblance to the first. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit]
|
