The Normalizing of Electoral College Protests | RealClearPolitics

When Sen. Josh Hawley introduced he would increase an objection in the course of the Electoral College rely certification on Wednesday, the Missouri Republican justified it partially by noting Democrats had lodged comparable protests. “Following both the 2004 and 2016 elections, Democrats in Congress objected during the certification of electoral votes in order to raise concerns about election integrity,” he stated. “They were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did. And they were entitled to do so. But now those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same.”

Is Hawley appropriate in evaluating what he’s about to do with what Democrats did following earlier elections? To reply that query, let’s take a more in-depth have a look at what occurred previously.

Hawley ignored two different situations of Democratic objections to the Electoral College rely. The first got here after the 1968 presidential election. Rep. James O’Hara of Michigan and Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine (that yr’s shedding vice presidential candidate) formally challenged the rely from North Carolina.

A “faithless elector” in North Carolina voted for third-party candidate George Wallace as a substitute of Richard Nixon, who narrowly carried  the state. Faithless electors had been cropping up for the reason that 1948 election (all supporting segregationist politicians) and O’Hara and Muskie apprehensive finally one would undemocratically tip the election, so that they needed to cease the observe. Unlike different examples of Electoral College rely interruptions, these objectors weren’t calling into query the end result or the integrity of the election. (Their objection garnered vital assist in each chambers, however was nonetheless defeated 228-170 within the House and 58-33 within the Senate.)

A extra related instance adopted the razor-thin, legally disputed 2000 election. Many Democrats have been outraged that the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount. Claiming that hundreds of Florida voters have been disenfranchised, a gaggle of House Democrats interrupted the Electoral College certification rely 20 occasions. But for the reason that Electoral Count Act requires a House member and a senator to object earlier than the 2 congressional chambers can debate and vote on an objection — and no senator objected — the complaints have been dominated out of order.

Returning to the examples Hawley cited, in 2004 one other presidential election was shut sufficient that one state may have modified the end result. This time, it was Ohio. Frustrated Democrats highlighted media reviews about issues with Ohio’s election system, together with lengthy wait occasions on the polls and 92,000 ballots that didn’t register votes. Some additionally raised questions in regards to the 133,000 voters eliminated (legally) from the rolls by the Republican secretary of state. The margin of victory wasn’t shut sufficient to simply argue that the potential impression of those elements tipped the election, however some corners of the left had been drawn to conspiracy theories. And when the Electoral College rely certification occurred, Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio) lodged the second formal objection in historical past.

Then when 2016’s election was marred by reviews of Russian interference, seven House Democrats tried to object to the Electoral College rely. But as with the 2000 rely, they may not get a single senator to affix them, so the complaints have been dominated out of order.

These examples could seem parallel to what’s occurring amongst Republicans now. As Hawley notes, the objections from 2000, 2004 and 2016 have been supposed to “raise concerns about election integrity,” regardless that the objectors knew they might not have the ability to change the election final result. But the similarities finish there.

Hawley’s declare that previous Democratic objectors “were praised by Democratic leadership and the media” leaves rather a lot out. In his assertion, he notes now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi supplied supportive phrases to the 2004 objectors, reminiscent of, “The Members of Congress who have brought this challenge are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been disenfranchised in this process. This is their only opportunity to have this debate while the country is listening, and it is appropriate to do so.” But he doesn’t cite any 2016 examples, nor any examples of media reward in any yr.

Hawley additionally doesn’t point out that when the 2004 problem was voted on by the House and Senate, it misplaced by big margins: 267-31 within the former and 74-1 within the latter (Boxer being the lone vote to simply accept her personal objection). Moreover, Pelosi, together with most Democrats, joined the bulk and voted to simply accept the Electoral College consequence, exhibiting her reward had its limits.

Another main distinction is that in 2000, 2004 and 2016, the shedding candidate had already given a concession speech. (Although Hillary Clinton continues to dwell on Russian shenanigans in 2016, calling the election “not on the level,” she nonetheless  conceded shortly after her defeat was clear.) In 2000, the individual ruling the complaints from House members as out of order was the Democrat who misplaced the election, Al Gore, who as vice chairman of the nation and president of the Senate was presiding over the joint session of Congress. In 2016, it was sitting Vice President Joe Biden implementing the foundations and accepting the end result.

This yr, the incumbent president together with Vice President Mike Pence have refused to concede and have solid baseless doubt on the election’s integrity. Trump has been calling the election fraudulent ever for the reason that polls closed, and on Saturday Pence’s workplace issued a press release saying he “shares the concerns of millions of Americans about voter fraud and irregularities in the last election” and “welcomes the efforts of members of the House and Senate to use the authority they have under the law to raise objections … on January 6th.”

Even after Democrats felt wronged by the Supreme Court in 2000, Senate Democrats and House Democratic management sought to protect belief in our democratic establishments. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt recommended his caucus to not increase objections, and Sen. Pat Leahy (Vt.) stated, “As much as I disagree with the court’s decision, I uphold it as the law of the land and won’t object.” Though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is reportedly attempting to dissuade his colleagues from objecting, a number of are planning to take action anyway. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy nonetheless hasn’t acknowledged Biden gained, and there are reviews {that a} majority of House Republicans will take part within the Electoral College problem.

Finally, the try by Hawley and others to solid the objection as an honorable protest to “raise concerns about election integrity” falls flat contemplating the election has been repeatedly litigated in courts by the Trump marketing campaign. Those efforts have universally been rejected by each Democratic- and Republican-appointed judges, as much as and together with the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats, in distinction, had some proof of irregularities in 2000, 2004 and 2016, proof that was a minimum of partially validated within the months after the Electoral College certification.

In 2000, two vote-by-vote opinions of Florida’s ballots performed by media consortiums discovered that, because the Associated Press put it, “George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.” (Gore’s authorized recount technique targeted on “undervotes,” ballots for which vote machines didn’t register a vote for any candidate, however neglected “overvotes,” ballots that had markings for Gore and one other candidate.) A congressional Democratic evaluate of the 2004 election in Ohio concluded, “There is no evidence from our survey that John Kerry won the state of Ohio,” however it nonetheless documented weaknesses within the system that warranted reforms. The Mueller report discovered that “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” Republicans don’t have anything of the kind to quote in the present day.

Case in level: Hawley has claimed Pennsylvania’s new regulation permitting for expansive mail voting violated its state structure, and on Saturday he stated authorized challenges have been thrown out by the state Supreme Court with out contemplating the deserves. What Hawley doesn’t point out is the case was thrown out as a result of it was filed after the election, since if the plaintiffs actually had an issue with the brand new mail-voting regulation they might have challenged it earlier than votes have been solid, not waited to see who gained first.

In different phrases, whereas Democrats previously expressed issues of voters being disenfranchised, the Republican lawsuits search to disenfranchise by throwing votes out.

Having stated all that, these Democrats who sought to disrupt the Electoral College certification shouldn’t be lauded for his or her excessive ways. For all the priority of the previous 4 years over “normalizing” Trump’s damaging conduct, these few Democrats have successfully normalized the Electoral College certification protest. Hawley and others can and can say they’re simply doing what Democrats did, and within the easiest sense, they are going to be appropriate.

What will seemingly transpire on Wednesday might be corrosive for our democracy. Dozens of Republicans, egged on by a lame-duck president, will egregiously stir up doubt amongst their supporters in regards to the integrity of our establishments, with out foundation actually. They could effectively have completed so with out Democrats doing it first, however they will extra simply play the “everybody does it” card as a result of Democrats did do it first.

Even although most Democrats didn’t participate, and regardless that the Democrats who did had much more legit issues than Republicans do in the present day, the very fact stays that previous Electoral College protests shouldn’t have been normalized. The advantages have been nil, and the prices excessive.