From: Steven Rosenfeld <info@ind.media>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 2:30 PM
To: miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: What Happens If Trump and Biden Both Claim Victory? Legal Scholars
Fret Over Plausible Scenarios
Can't see this email?
<https://go.ind.media/webmail/546932/618063397/7991937db44343e9cec213517912f781b90561249da110238834e380d5bfb562>
Read Online
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/l-546932-2019-08-26-9y7jlr/fg7yy4/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/l-546932-2019-08-26-9y7jlr/fg7yy4/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
Please support our work.
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/l-546932-2019-08-26-9y7jlr/fg7yy4/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
We can’t do it without you.
What Happens If Trump and Biden Both Claim Victory? Legal Scholars Fret Over
Plausible Scenarios
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/happens-again-with-trump-biden/fg7yy6/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
Delving into how Trump and the GOP can hijack the process, they find an
untested law, procedural unknowns and few clear constitutional brakes.
By Steven Rosenfeld
With six months to go until November’s 2020 election, dozens of America’s top
legal minds convened to consider what would have been unthinkable before Donald
Trump’s presidency. They gathered to brainstorm what could be done to prevent
the country from descending into a “civil war-like scenario,” as one
participant put it, if Trump and Joe Biden both claim that they won the
presidency—and won’t back down.
Their May 4 teleconference
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/dtable-2020-disputed-election-/fg7yy8/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
parsed a series of nightmare scenarios in the aftermath of the November 3
election that would lead to competing Electoral College results being sent to
Congress from battleground states—one issued by a Republican legislature
backing Trump, and another issued by the Democratic governor backing Biden.
The scenarios continued onto January 6, 2021, where, in a joint congressional
session to ratify the Electoral College votes presided over by Vice President
Mike Pence, the House and Senate were sent to their chambers to debate for two
hours. When they reconvened, the Senate backed the Trump electors while the
House backed the Biden slate.
The question put before the scholars was what could stop the 2020 election from
spiraling that far out of control or going even further downhill, as occurred
in the 1876 presidential election when two candidates claimed to win, waged
relentless partisan battles, and were both planning separate inaugurations—with
Samuel Tilden backing down only 48 hours before Rutherford B. Hayes was sworn
in as president.
“My big fear, as a country, is that we don’t know our history well enough to
know that we came within 48 hours of inauguration day with two people claiming
to be president, and the incumbent thinking about martial law—that was Ulysses
Grant because he was worried that there were going to be two simultaneous
inauguration sessions,” said Edward B. Foley
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/faculty-edward-b-foley-/fg7yyb/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, director of Moritz College of Law’s election law program at Ohio State
University and a national authority
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/s-9780190235277-cc-us-lang-en-/fg7yyd/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
on disputed presidential elections. He organized the brainstorming session
with Steven F. Huefner
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ing-room-tag-steven-f-huefner-/fg7yyg/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, a Moritz senior fellow and former U.S. Senate counsel who also is an expert
on vote-counting disputes.
“To replicate that kind of thing [a cascading crisis] on January 18, 2021, in
an era with nuclear codes, seems to me an altogether more problematic scenario
than even the dire circumstances of March 1, 1877,” Foley continued, referring
to the date Congress convened
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/topic-Electoral-Commission/fg7yyj/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
in the Hayes-Tilden dispute. “So it may be a Don Quixote quixotic effort to
try to wrestle these legal problems into the ground. But I feel some
responsibility to say that we have actually been there as a country once
before, and it was not pretty. There might be no avoiding [a calamity] if we go
down that road again.”
Never before in recent history have the nation’s top constitutional and
election scholars convened six months ahead of a presidential election to ward
off what they fear could be a constitutional meltdown if an incumbent president
and his most strident partisan allies seek to disrupt or disregard counting
votes and the transfer of presidential power.
Lighting the Fuse
Three nightmarish scenarios were put before the legal and electoral scholars:
* In Pennsylvania, an outcry emerges after thousands of Philadelphia
voters have not received absentee ballots. Civil rights activists sue, and the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court extends the election for these voters—and anyone
else in the state not getting their ballot. Pennsylvania’s Republican-majority
legislature countersues in federal court to block the extended voting, but it
doesn’t stop there. The legislature uses the extension as an excuse to certify
a pro-Trump Electoral College slate and submits that result to Congress.
* In Michigan, the crisis begins when early but incomplete election night
returns show Trump ahead. But as the counting continues and the momentum starts
to shift to Biden, Trump tweets that he won and declares that enough votes have
been counted. Michigan’s Republican-majority legislature follows Trump’s tweets
and certifies a pro-Trump slate of presidential electors. That unilateral move
prompts the Michigan Democratic Party to sue in federal court, using an
argument that’s similar to what Republicans cited in the Pennsylvania scenario:
pre-existing election rules cannot be ignored.
In these two scenarios, both states’ Democratic governors end up sending a
separate certificate to Congress declaring their state’s Electoral College
votes should be awarded to Biden. Thus, two sets of Electoral College results
from the same state are presented for Congress to sort out. These developments
spark an explosion of political posturing, partisan threats and disinformation,
and more litigation.
* In the final scenario, in Florida, a state with a GOP governor and
legislative majority, the governor cancels the election due to a major
hurricane. It cannot be rescheduled before December 14, 2020, when the national
deadline falls for all of the presidential electors to cast their ballots.
Emergency legislation ensues, and Republicans authorize a pro-Trump Electoral
College slate—citing pre-election polling. The Florida Democratic Party sues in
federal court, claiming that Florida’s GOP cannot nullify a popular vote
election.
What would, could or should happen, Foley asked as the process wound its way
through expected and unexpected twists and turns that comprise the presidential
election’s final stages. The scholars were asked to identify where legal lines
in the sand could be drawn, so that the 2020 election would not disintegrate:
where laws lost their meaning, could not be enforced, and what they called
“politics not law” could emerge to seize the presidency.
The academics were some of the nation’s most respected constitutional law
scholars, election law experts and political scientists. Apart from the U.S.
Constitution, the only federal law laying out how to resolve a disputed
presidential election was the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA).
That little-known law took 14 years to craft, with debates going back even
before the 1876 presidential election debacle. According to a scholarly article
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/3dtP4Vq/fg7yyl/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
by DePaul University’s Stephen Siegel
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-a-z-Pages-stephen-siegel-aspx/fg7yyn/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
—said by some teleconference participants to be the most authoritative modern
exposition on the ECA—the law was “turgid,” “repetitious,” and “contradictory,”
and it had been incorrectly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court when it
stopped Florida’s presidential recount in 2000, elevating George W. Bush to the
White House.
These nightmare scenarios and the prospect of an obscure 133-year-old law
deciding a post-election battle between Trump and Biden led the scholars to say
that even with its flaws, some principles or norms in the ECA had to be
clarified before November.
“In the context we’re imagining, any kind of rule structure that can be put on
the table in any greater clarity to the focal point that we have with the
Electoral Count Act is desirable because you’re basically in a civil war
context at this point—or very close to it,” said New York University Law School
constitutional law professor Rick Pildes
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/rofile-overview-personid-20200/fg7yyq/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
. “I think that is as much as you can hope for. It may be meaningless at the
end of the day. It may become a focal point in the midst of this civil war-like
scenario.”
Scenario One: Philadelphia Disenfranchisement
The scenarios presented by Foley and Huefner all start on or around Election
Day with easily imaginable developments, but escalate unpredictably.
The first scenario starts with voting rights groups suing on behalf of
Philadelphia voters who did not get absentee ballots in time to vote. That
delay triggered legal battles, first in state court, seeking to extend the
election so that Philadelphians and any other similarly affected Pennsylvanian
could vote. (In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing the state
Constitution’s protection of voting rights, overturned
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/against-partisan-gerrymanders-/fg7yys/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
an extreme gerrymander by the Republican-majority legislature in 2011. That
case’s ruling suggests that the court might be open to extending voting in
November.)
But the Republican Party of Pennsylvania does not sit idly by. It filed a
federal lawsuit to stop that extension of voting, creating what New York
University Law School’s Samuel Issacharoff
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/rofile-overview-personid-23845/fg7yyv/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
said was a key feature of this scenario: “a turf war” between federal and
state courts. (In Wisconsin’s April 7 primary, the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
federal district court and U.S. Supreme Court issued contradictory rulings
concerning absentee ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/wisconsin-stunner-/fg7yyx/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
the election to continue—including not extending the deadline for voters not
receiving absentee ballots.)
Richard Hasen
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/faculty-full-time-hasen-/fg7yyz/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, a University of California, Irvine, law and political science professor,
found the scenario disturbing on many levels. He initially focused on the
pragmatic task of extending a vote-by-mail election in a state that did not
have a history of widespread absentee voting (which is occurring in many states
in response to the pandemic).
“I would hope that if the state court is going to order relief like this, it is
going to do what some courts have done in the past, which is bring in election
officials and ask them if this is actually doable,” he said. “I’m not confident
that Philadelphia election officials would be able to handle thousands of these
ballots and be able to process them in a way that wouldn’t raise yet another
lawsuit about the due process concerns—about the actual counting of those
ballots.”
Court orders can prompt unintended consequences, Hasen said. “We saw it in the
Wisconsin case, where the Supreme Court went to the postmark [date on the
ballot as a deadline for it to count]. That turned out to create a whole bunch
of new issues because there was not consistency in how the local election
boards dealt with non-postmarked ballots.”
Teasing out these scenarios left Hasen and others with an uneasy déjà-vu
feeling.
“I was having nightmare flashbacks to
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/wiki-Bush-v--Gore/fg7yz2/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
Bush v. Gore—actually back to
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-Beach-County-Canvassing-Board/fg7yz4/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the first case,” he said, where
there were questions about whether a state constitution could legitimize
“changing rules for presidential elections… without the state legislature
affirmatively agreeing to those changes.”
“If that question arose [in November], I expect that we would see exactly the
same ideological partisan division between conservatives and liberals, between
Republican-appointed justices and liberal-appointed justices, should it get to
the Supreme Court,” Hasen said. “I don’t think that we have made any progress
in 20 years… You can hear the arguments being made here, the echoes of exactly
what we heard in Bush v. Gore.”
The Pennsylvania scenario is not without a factual basis. Problems with
delivering and counting large volumes of absentee ballots occurred in the first
two statewide elections held since the pandemic broke in mid-March: Wisconsin’s
presidential primary on April 7 and Ohio’s primary on April 28. In Wisconsin,
more than
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ads-sites-41-2020-04-198-1-pdf/fg7yz6/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
150,000 absentee ballots were not returned on time or were disqualified for
other reasons, according to an April 30 court filing
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ads-sites-41-2020-04-198-1-pdf/fg7yz6/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
by the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic Party.
As of May 7, more than a week after Ohio’s primary, the state’s 88 county
election boards had yet to account for 199,693 “outstanding absentee” and
44,368 “outstanding provisional” ballots, according to the Ohio secretary of
state’s website
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/2020-05-11/fg7yz8/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
. These are not small numbers from either state. The volume of Wisconsin’s
rejected ballots in its low-turnout April 2020 primary was more than six times
the size of Trump’s 2016 margin
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/idential-election-in-Wisconsin/fg7yzb/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
over Hillary Clinton in that state.
Later in the nearly five-hour discussion, Michael Morley
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/faculty-staff-michael-morley/fg7yzd/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, a Florida State University law professor, made a telling point that
suggested that the Democrats’ intention to protect the vote in the Pennsylvania
scenario could backfire. Any major last-minute voting extension was likely not
only to be rejected by federal courts—following the U.S. Supreme Court’s
Wisconsin primary ruling
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/wp-content-uploads-19A1016-pdf/fg7yzg/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, he said. But that last-minute change also could give the GOP-led legislature
a legal excuse and argument to act on its own to certify a pro-Trump slate of
electors—and send it to Congress without the Democratic governor’s signature.
“You could imagine situations where the legislature is stepping in to say… ‘We
are appointing a slate of electors reflecting what we perceive to be the
accurate outcome based on the election as it was conducted in accordance with
state statute—not with what appears to be this judicial deviation from state
statute,’” Morley said.
Scenario Two: Overriding the Popular Vote
In the Michigan scenario, Trump declared victory before the vote counting was
finished and officially certified. Following his cues on Twitter, its
Republican-majority legislature certified a pro-Trump Electoral College slate
and sent it to Congress—ignoring the state’s Democratic governor, secretary of
state and attorney general. In response, the Michigan Democratic Party sued in
federal court, citing much the same legal argument that the GOP used in the
Pennsylvania scenario: you can’t change the rules in midstream.
“This scenario is built on the concept of the so-called ‘blue shift’ or
late-counted ballot scholarship that some of us have been involved in,”
explained Foley, “which is a phenomenon where, with nothing going wrong, but
just because of the way in which we have done changes to voting since 2000 and
the Help America Vote Act of 2002, it’s just much more likely that ballots are
going to be counted, not on election night, but subsequently during the
[post-Election Day] canvassing process.”
“This [scenario] also builds on what was observed in Arizona and Florida in
2018,” he continued, citing real-life precedents. “The fear is that we can
imagine, for example, President Trump, winning, as it were, or, at least ahead
on election night in the count of votes in a pivotal state—let’s say
Michigan—and yet that lead disappearing over the next week as additional
ballots get counted. And President Trump tweeting, as he did with respect to
the Florida election in 2018, saying, ‘No… The initial count is good. Let’s
stop counting ballots because we’ve got an accurate count.’ Whereas the
election officials say, ‘No, these are valid ballots. They need to be counted.’
And then you have a certified final result after canvassing [the official
post-Election Day reconciliation of all votes cast] that puts the Democrats on
top, and yet Trump is still protesting that outcome.”
What happens next is a mix of disinformation and bullying that ignores the law
and raises yet more demons, namely the old trope that the process is corrupt if
your side loses.
“Again, this is all hypothetical,” Foley said. “But what if the Michigan
legislature says, ‘You know what? We just don’t trust late-counted ballots. And
so we are going to assert our authority under the federal constitutional
Article II to appoint electors directly.’ So now we have this conflict between
the certified result from the secretary of state that said that Biden won
Michigan, but we have the legislature in Michigan saying, ‘No… We don’t trust
that result. We are going to appoint the Republican electors.’ So now, the
Democrats are going to federal court invoking the same concept of due
process—‘hey, don’t change the rules’—as the Republicans cited in the scenario
from Pennsylvania.”
This scenario also is not merely theoretical. The battleground states of
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina all have
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ty-control-of-state-government/fg7yzj/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
Democratic governors and Republican-majority legislatures. Whether the most
partisan legislative leaders would ignore vote-counting law and procedure,
trash election officials and resurrect voter-fraud tropes is an open question
that can only be assessed state by state.
In Wisconsin, the GOP-led legislature forced the state to hold its April
primary in a pandemic to try to secure
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/wisconsin-stunner-/fg7yyx/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
a swing vote on the state supreme court—which backfired. Also in April, North
Carolina’s top-ranking Republican, Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger, slammed
suggestions by the North Carolina State Board of Elections to expedite absentee
voting in the pandemic, saying
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-p-110356/fg7yzl/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
that the procedural reforms came from “progressive, liberal Democratic
groups.” Berger further said
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/itorials-article241887126-html/fg7yzn/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
that he did not trust North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper to oversee
the 2020 election.
The Michigan scenario raised the question of whether a state legislature has
the authority to override the popular vote in a presidential election. The
third scenario, in Florida, where a hurricane forced the election to be
canceled and it could not be rescheduled before the Electoral College met on
December 14
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/electoral-college-key-dates/fg7yzq/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, was a variation of this question.
A Line in the Sand—or Not?
The core issue here was whether or not legislatures could act
independently—either ignoring the popular vote result and/or bypassing their
governor. Later in the discussion, the question came up of whether governors
could do the same. (It turned out that the 1887 Electoral Count Act gave
governors more authority
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/2WghIUs/fg7yzs/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
than legislators.) But for now, restricting renegade legislatures seemed to
be a place where scholars could draw a line in the sand, some said.
“I actually think that this may be one of the most important places to seek
consensus,” said Justin Levitt
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/y-facultylistl-r-levittjustin-/fg7yzv/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, Loyola Law School associate dean for research and professor. “Because of the
procedural problems that other people have noted: Who do you sue? Can you
enjoin [stop] anything? Is this something that Congress should decide about
what to do with different slates of electors? I think if you were looking for
[a] robust consensus from a group of people across partisan boundaries who
study this issue to weigh in, this would be a place… particularly because the
federal courts might not be ideally empowered to make that assessment.”
Levitt was responding to the challenge that Foley and Huefner laid out: Was
there a baseline that nationally known experts in constitutional law, election
administration and presidential succession could agree on? Was it plainly
unconstitutional for legislatures to independently appoint presidential
electors to benefit their party?
But the legal answer was not clear. Some conservative scholars on the
teleconference said that Congress should take up the issue of competing slates
of electors, as it did in 1960 when Hawaii submitted
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/35Gl9Xy/fg7yzx/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
three slates in the photo-finish race between Democrat John F. Kennedy and
Republican Richard Nixon. They said it might even be desirable for Congress to
openly debate that clash. But could there be an open debate, Foley asked, when
in the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021 (to ratify the 2020
Electoral College results), the presiding officer is the vice president, Mike
Pence, a candidate seeking re-election? Some noted that Al Gore had the role
after the 2000 election.
As the discussion kept going, the severity of the possible constitutional
crisis and lack of clear boundaries sunk in and alarmed some participants.
“This is one of the real nightmare scenarios that could very well take place,”
said Norman Ornstein
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/profile-norman-j-ornstein-/fg7yzz/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, a historian and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “We
could easily imagine state legislatures in a number of places deciding that
they didn’t like the outcome of the election, and trying to shift it to
Congress—knowing or believing at that point that we might get the House and
Senate disagreeing over which slates of electors to accept, and leaving it to
the House of Representatives to decide who would become the president. Then
leaving it in a situation where we would not have anybody getting the requisite
270 Electoral [College] votes.”
If the selection of the next president ended up in the House, under the 12th
Amendment each state delegation gets one vote. Currently, there are
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/the-us-house-by-state-714-html/fg7z12/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
26 delegations with a majority of Republican members, 22 with a majority of
Democratic members, and two states with equal members from both
parties—Pennsylvania and Michigan. But before that eleventh-hour process would
kick in, Foley said that other steps and legal interventions would likely
occur. Meanwhile, could scholars draw a line much closer to Election Day, he
asked, by affirming the state’s official presidential election results?
“As long as independently and objectively the election officials, [and] the
election administrators, are correct that the popular vote is an accurate
count… [is] there a true legal answer to which certificate Congress should
adopt?” Foley asked. “If that’s true, then maybe the legal community can rally
around that point.”
“Because what I fear is if there has been political pressure that’s going to
cause the Michigan legislature to want to supersede the popular vote, there’s
going to be political pressure in Congress, for one chamber at least, to try to
do that too,” he continued. “Is there any point where legal intervention [can
happen]? Not necessarily by a court, but by academics who can say, ‘Wait a
second. There’s actually a right answer to this question that Congress should
follow.’”
But not every scholar present agreed that the official election results could
be trusted.
Conservative Skepticism
“Ned, could I jump in here,” said John C. Fortier
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/person-john-c-fortier-/fg7z14/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, director of governmental studies at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “There’s a
distinction between, ‘I think… the facts don’t really support that there’s
anything [that] was particularly wrong here,’ versus a decision of an election
administrator. That decision might be something you find very objectionable. I
can bring up election administrators on either side of the aisle [about whom]
people would have said, ‘Well, they did that for bad purposes. They made the
wrong decision.’”
At this point the discussion entered the constitutional danger zone, where
respect for laws and enforcing rules as the underpinning of elections begins to
disintegrate.
The scholars wanted to respect precedent and institutional authority. But there
were likely to be problems in administering November’s elections in a pandemic,
especially as states were poised to make unprecedented shifts to voting by
mail. There were little-known and untested ambiguities in the Electoral Count
Act, whose rules were written 133 years ago. The longer a presidential election
dispute went on, including what might happen if it went before Congress, the
more dangerous it became, some scholars said.
“This is a very difficult set of questions,” said NYU Law School’s Issacharoff.
“One question is what can be done ahead of time to try to forestall this… I
don’t think that the Electoral Count Act is well-settled law. It has been on
the books for a long time. It has never been applied. The closest we came to it
was its spiritual invocation in Bush v. Gore. It is hardly a blueprint for how
institutional actors can settle themselves.”
But some conservative scholars disagreed, noting that the ECA has been used
recently.
“In 2001, members of Congress repeatedly on the floor tried to object to
counting Florida’s electoral votes, and [then-Vice President] Al Gore said [it
was], ‘improper under the Electoral Count Act,’” said Derek Muller
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/faculty-research-derek-muller-/fg7z16/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, professor of law at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law. “In 2005,
they challenged Ohio’s electors—Democrats in both the House and Senate. They
debated for two hours. They came back. They counted Ohio’s votes. In 2017, it
was a parade of objections on the floor of Congress with [presiding Vice
President] Joe Biden saying, ‘It’s over. It’s over under the Electoral Count
Act.’ I agree: the two-slate [of electors] question is sort of an open, highly
debatable contest. But I do think the Electoral Count Act has served its
function the last three times the Republicans have been elected, where
Democrats have been contesting the election [result] on the floor of Congress.”
“I think there’s always a question about what one says rhetorically and what
actually is driving the result,” replied Issacharoff. “The overriding of the
seemingly expressed popular will, by legislative fiat either at the state or
congressional level, is, thus far, a radical departure from American norms… I
doubt if a single member of Congress had any idea what the Electoral Count Act
was or what its provisions might say.”
Politics or Law?
The notion that “politics, not law” could determine the 2020 presidential
election outcome began to hover over the discussion’s closing hours. Scholars
asked if non-legal factors, such as public opinion after the popular vote was
seen as being ignored by partisans, might pressure or sway congressional
actions.
“It may make sense to, in the same way that you’d advise a client, [say,]
‘Look, you need to win beyond the margin of litigation.’ You can also say to
the people who are involved, ‘Look, you need to win beyond the margin for
intransigence,’” said Lisa Manheim
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-faculty-manheim-lisa-marshall/fg7z18/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, a University of Washington law professor. “What exactly does that mean?
Well, we have been talking for hours about all of the different places where we
can have these problems. One of the things that we can do perhaps is to flag
those—say those are the problems. We need to avoid those. The truth of the
matter is there is not a clear legal answer.”
These kinds of thresholds would likely be where the U.S. Supreme Court would
weigh in, several scholars said.
“The question of whether law applies or doesn’t apply is itself a legal
question,” said Elizabeth Goitein
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/experts-elizabeth-goitein/fg7z1b/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national
security program. “In the sense [that] a lot of what we are asking is whether
Congress can be bound by the Electoral Count Act, that itself is a legal
question: Whether Congress can be bound by it; whether it is enforceable. Which
is not to say that if the Supreme Court were to resolve that question that
Congress would necessarily abide by it, and then we’d be back in the land of
politics.”
“I agree with all of this. If we get to this worst-case scenario, with two
competing slates and split-party control of the two chambers of Congress, it is
almost inconceivable to me that the Supreme Court doesn’t decide that
question,” said Adav Noti
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/staff-adav-noti/fg7z1d/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, senior director of trial litigation and chief of staff at the Campaign Legal
Center. He added that Chief Justice “John Roberts, for all his reluctance to
get involved in political disputes, the reason he doesn’t like that is to build
credibility for exactly situations like this.”
“There is no other mechanism to solve it,” Noti continued. “I think the Supreme
Court justices will weigh in, even if it’s a 5-4 decision, before they will let
blood run in the streets. Now maybe they will enforce the ECA. They’ll say the
governors get to tie-break. Maybe they’ll say, ‘No, the ECA is unconstitutional
because under the Constitution, state legislatures have plenary power, so they
have to have the tie break. Maybe they’ll say the president of the Senate
decides, unless he’s overruled by a majority of senators… But I think they will
decide.”
But whether partisan Republicans in Congress would follow the Supreme Court—or
any legal framework—as opposed to muscling Trump’s appointment to a second
term, is not a given. Not when, as the Amherst College law professor Lawrence
Douglas
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/people-facstaff-lrdouglas/fg7z1g/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
said, the nation’s most fervent partisans seem to be operating under
diverging assumptions and principles.
“Maybe the binary that we are drawing between law on one hand and politics on
the other doesn’t entirely describe the gravity of the situation that we are
confronting right now,” he said. “Rules presuppose certain presupposed
normative understandings. And once these normative understandings erode, I’m
not sure that rules are really in the position to solidify or reinforce them.”
“This discussion makes me nervous. I assume it makes all of us nervous because
it drives home how quickly we can spiral into this dynamic in our current
polarized and existential political culture, in which there are no effective
legal structures that are going to govern if we get into some of these kinds of
disputes,” NYU’s Pildes said. “This discussion drives home the more uncertainty
there is beyond Election Day, the more rules are changed at the last minute,
whether by courts that think they are doing things in good faith and are
worried about protecting the individual right to vote of a few thousand people
who didn’t get the ballots they requested for absentee voting and the like; the
more that opens up all of the capacity to destabilize the result…”
“You can see from this discussion how quickly those kinds of changes can become
the excuse for kind of blowing up the whole election. And that’s part of what I
am taking away from this whole discussion.”
Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/voting-booth-/fg7yy2/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National
Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a
wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American
Prospect, and many others.
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/l-546932-2019-08-26-9y7jlr/fg7yy4/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
Corporate media won’t cover stories
like the one you just read.
Support our work.
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/voting-booth-/fg7yy2/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/2020-05-11/fg7z1j/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
<https://go.ind.media/listpreferences?ehash=7991937db44343e9cec213517912f781b90561249da110238834e380d5bfb562&email_id=618063397&epc_hash=-WK9AbDeYWDCHCvQ7y_Sc2xQpog745znTfRargmy7Zs>
Update Your Preferences |
<https://go.ind.media/unsubscribe/u/546932/7991937db44343e9cec213517912f781b90561249da110238834e380d5bfb562/618063397>
Unsubscribe |
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/l-546932-2019-04-29-88km5l/fg7z1l/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
Support IMI
Voting Booth is a project of the Independent Media Institute.
To find out more about Voting Booth and its latest work,
<https://go.ind.media/e/546932/voting-booth-/fg7yy2/618063397?h=ymHK_NrHcwQQcAtXiPdTpwVkecYNkhB6cT3XFDlQaIw>
click here.
18 West 21st Street, Suite 901, New York, NY 10010
© 2020 Independent Media Institute. All Rights Reserved.
<https://go.ind.media/r/546932/1/618063397/open/1>
<https://wui4ynv3.emltrk.com/wui4ynv3?d=%5bUNIQUE%5d>
