Now, 3 days before an election might be an issue if the results of the attack prevented a lot of people from voting. I'm more concerned with attacks immediately before or during an election, such as the New York primary election on 9-11-2001. Today, federal law doesn't give any leeway for delaying the election. That could serve to truly disenfranchise a lot of voters.

Imagine for a moment what it would've been like had 9-11-2001 been a presidential (and all of the House of Representatives and 1/3rd of the Senators) election. Mass transit was disrupted for millions of New Yorkers and things were a mess in Washington DC, too. Millions of people would've had a difficult time voting on that day. Should we just say, "Too bad"?

Or should someone consider reasonable alternatives in time to come up with a workable and agreeable plan? The key is to set realistic criteria for postponing an election and a recovery plan to rehold the election at the earliest opportunity. Then, get broad-based buy-in to the plan. There are all sorts of things to consider, such as should vote counting be postponed nationwide until the recover election is held so as not to sway the outcome? Western states have long complained when national news outlets announce election results before the polls have closed in their states. This wouldn't be much different.