Don’t start reading this at 11:30 p.m.
It's likely to freak
you out and make it hard to sleep, and if you do, you’re going to have
nightmares. No, this is not a blood curdling Stephen King piece of fiction. As my old Williams College history professor
used to say: “Who needs fiction when reality is this crazy?”
If you, my fellow citizens, are frightened by this, so be
it. There are less than 100 days until election, and it is now officially time
to get really worried. And to get to work. Everyone.
Let’s say this as plainly as we can: in order to ensure
that Joe Biden is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20,
2021, he is not just going to have to win a number of those big swing states,
but he is going to have to win them by real and comfortable margins … or
else there is the very real possibility that the Republicans and Donald Trump
will be able to muddy the waters just enough to create a Constitutional
catastrophe. In a worst case scenario we will examine, Donald
Trump loses the popular vote and the Electoral College… and still keeps
the Presidency.
Sure, things look good now for Biden and the Democrats, but
we progressives have a tendency to be a bit trusting, idealistic, and – in our
admirable commitment to “playing by the rules” – we may be naive about
the way this game is going to be played. We still may not really believe Trump,
Barr, McConnell, and their moneyed donors are essentially ruthless, cutthroat, and soulless
mob bosses who have already proven a complete willingness to subvert, pervert,
and destroy American Democracy in order to retain power. Trump, Barr, and
McConnell have already demonstrated that they will brazenly and comfortably twist,
manipulate, and abuse the power they hold as heads of the Executive, Senate,
and the Department of Justice for purely partisan and personal enrichment. And heaven knows what "October surprises" they are planning.
Understand just how bloodthirsty Donald Trump is to retain
the office of the Presidency. For Trump, keeping the White House is not simply
some political vanity, it is a life or death struggle to stay out of jail.
Trump knows that if this election goes to the Democrats, the full array of his
private, corporate, and governmental crimes will be laid bare by aggressive
states attorney generals and by a newly installed U.S. Attorney General. Personally,
I’m rooting for Adam Schiff, who won’t feel justice has been served until Trump is breathing the
coronavirus-rich air of a Federal penitentiary. Trump knows he is guilty of
enough crimes to seal this fate, so he will do anything – and that includes putting the safety of American citizens at risk – to keep power.
Democrats are playing by the rules and no one on Trump’s team
is. Republicans are going to lie, cheat, steal, vilify, and destroy anything they view
to be in the way of a second term. No one is saying that we sink to their
level. It’s just going to mean that we all have to roll up our sleeves and
actually work to get Joe Biden elected by as large a margin as possible. That
is truly our most certain defense.
Yes, Trump and his henchmen are going to use every trick in
the book to push this election to Donald Trump… and unfortunately there is a
stunning array of tricks under their direct or indirect control. Allow me to
relay just one scenario for you today that weaves together Trump’s outrages in
Portland, his endless refrains contesting the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, his
quest to delay the election, the reports of voter suppression and intimidation,
Trump’s apparent unconcern for the raging COVID-19 pandemic, and why Trump is
quadrupling down on his 2016 strategy of stroking his base to climax without
the slightest regard for converting a single centrist voter.
My nightmare involves a few words buried in the obscure 12th
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was drawn to my attention by
a long-time BTRTN reader who is a much-decorated combat veteran and a great
patriot. His tip sent me off a-googling, where I encountered a fully fleshed
out version of this theory written by journalist Greg Palast.
Indeed, this did happen – once. No candidate received a
majority in the Electoral College in 1824, and John Quincy Adams was elected President
in 1824 in the manner prescribed by the 12th Amendment… by a vote in the House
of Representatives, in which each state’s delegation cast one vote.
One reason you’ve never heard of the Twelfth Amendment is that
in the era of a highly-evolved two party system, it holds virtually no
relevance. It has been over 50 years since a third-party candidate for
President won the electoral votes of a single state. With only two
parties essentially dividing all the electoral votes, the only real reason that
neither candidate would win a majority is if there were to be a tie… which is technically
possible, as the Electoral College has an even number of electors. But there is
only a tiny chance of a tie in the Electoral College, and without a powerful
third party candidate to siphon off Electoral College votes, it would appear
impossible for neither candidate to receive a majority.
Or so it would seem.
Palast, however, takes the position that a state could intentionally withhold sending its delegation to the Electoral College for the precise purpose of denying one candidate a majority. Say there is a heavily Republican State Legislature
in a swing state that goes to Biden in the popular vote by a razor thin margin.
That state legislature could, hypothetically, claim it needed to investigate
alleged voter fraud in enough of the ballots to sway the election, and simply conclude
that it cannot certify the state’s election in time for the convening of the Electoral
College, according to journalist Palast’s
reading of the 12th Amendment.
Depending on how close the election is (see Bush v. Gore,
2000), it might take only one state refraining from certifying its slate of
electors to deny Joe Biden a majority in the Electoral College. And if no
candidate reaches a majority in the Electoral College, the Twelfth Amendment
mandates that the President by chosen by the House of Representatives, with
each state getting one vote. So while the House of Representatives in total has
a strong Democratic majority, the fact is that more than 25 states have more
Republican Representatives than Democrats.
Trump wins again.
Yes, Trump keeps the White House, with a full
Constitutional basis to his claim… having failed to win a majority of popular
votes, or even a majority of votes in the Electoral College.
It is interesting to study recent Republican tactics and Trump
actions with this scenario in mind.
Many people are puzzled why Donald Trump continues in the
face of poor and declining national job approval ratings to focus his entire
efforts on pleasing his narrow Red State base, rather than try to expand his appeal.
This theory helps explain it: Trump may figure that the only path to re-election is
by (1) replicating his 2016 muscle in deep red states, (2) focusing on voter
suppression and intimidation in swing States, and (3) sowing as much doubt,
uncertainty, and contention as possible by aggressively
messaging that mail-in ballots are corrupt. This provides the rationale for State
legislatures to declare their elections to have been corrupted… potentially
triggering the need for the 12th Amendment.
You find the scenario hard to believe? Consider that the
recent Georgia primary election was an utter and complete shit-show, demonstrating
how a Republican-controlled executive branch can suppress the vote,
disenfranchise voters, and create chaos and ambiguity surrounding an election. Georgia
slashed qualified voters from the lists used to confirm voters at polling
places, citing any failure by a citizen to vote in the last two elections as reason to declare
that voter inactive. This is squarely against Supreme Court rulings. Georgia under-equipped polling places in minority neighborhoods, with the intent of
creating long lines that forced all but the most determined to abandon their
desire to vote. This, of course, was the game plan that got the second
stupidest man in America – Brian Kemp – elected governor in 2018.
While some of the most important swings states have
Democratic Governors who could limit such tactics (Michigan, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania), states like Florida, Arizona, Iowa, and Georgia are run by Trump
puppets.
But then again, why rely only on Republican
Governors to undermine sanctity of the election process when even more carnage can be wrought by Trump's Federal storm troopers? Trump’s imposition of a variant of martial law
on an American city is, at one level, an obvious attempt to rachet up the “law
and order” culture war he launched when he attempted to re-brand the BLM
movement as just so many looters and anarchists. At a second different level,
he knows that the images played on loops over at Fox News are galvanizing the
liberal-hating racists in his base, creating a renewed urgency to support Trump among
those who have been alienated by his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
And, at yet a third level, Trump is trying now to
“normalize” the use of Federal troops to quell “out-of-control” protests so
that he can order those troops into swing state cities on election day to
intimidate voters in minority neighborhoods. If Trump can use put Federal
troops into majority Democratic cities on the pretext of quelling damage to
Federal property, there is nothing stopping him from sending battalions into
Democratic precincts in swing states days before the election, egging on the
type of confrontations that in turn are used as justifications for police violence. Guns, tear gas, and beatings would understandably stop many voters in their tracks. Fewer voters in
Democratic districts, while Republicans enjoy an easy stroll to the voting
booth? These are the actions that can change outcomes.
So you think that Trump’s benign neglect of the coronavirus
has simply been an epic demonstration of incompetence, stupidity, and being
completely asleep at the wheel? How about this theory: Trump may well think that a still-widening COVID-19 pandemic on election day is helpful to his cause. He intends to use it as exhibit one for why the 2020 election is
fraudulent. Read this stunning tweet of July 29:
“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee
Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT
Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the
Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”
Who knows if Trump seriously thinks that he can move the
election, but that issue is the secondary point. Trump’s real objective is to
prep the market for the bigger sale: that because there will be broad mail-in
balloting due to the coronavirus, the election cannot be trusted. He is
sowing the seeds for a massive legal battle over the legitimacy of the
election.
So let’s say, for sake of argument, that Joe Biden wins all
“Blue Wall” and “Blue Leaning” states, and even appears to have won the popular
vote in all six of the states considered to be the most contested swing states
in the 2020 election: Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and
Ohio. That would give him a handy
Electoral College total of 332. Wonderful.
But what if, of those crucial six states, he flips only three that
went for Trump in 2016 – say, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Biden
still wins a majority of the Electoral College, but it is quite narrow... a mere 8 electoral votes over the 270 needed for victory.
Now comes the ground-zero impact of Palast's theory: what happens if just one of the states Biden “won” – say Wisconsin, with ten electoral votes – has
its election process bludgeoned Trump’s goons? What if understaffed,
under-equipped polling places and Federal riot police intimidating voters in
minority areas have made the actual vote closer than it should have been? Then
Trump’s legal team goes to work, claiming widespread voter fraud in the "unreliable" mail-in ballots. In this perspective,
an untamed COVID-19 epidemic actually helps Trump, as tens of thousand of
people mail in ballots rather than risk contagion in lengthy lines at the
voting booth. Trump has pre-conditioned his believers to view mail-in ballots
as rife with fraud.
Wisconsin’s Republican Legislature then decides that the election is "contaminated" by fraud, and refuses to ratify the
election, forbidding Biden electors from convening with the Electoral
College. Denied those ten votes, Biden has only 268 votes, Trump has 260, and
ten votes go uncounted. Neither candidate wins a majority of the Electoral
College. The Twelfth Amendment is invoked.
The selection of the President is turned over the House of
Representatives, where each state gets one vote. While the Democrats have the
majority of total representatives, the Republicans have the majority of
Representatives in over 25 individual state delegations.
Trump wins a second term.
Here’s the really bad news. This could happen in
Wisconsin... or Florida, Ohio, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Any of these states
could end up denying Biden an Electoral College majority by withholding their
certification of their elections. All of them have Republican legislatures.
All of the above leads to an interesting implication: Trump believes that he is going to lose the election.
So he is urgently putting every mechanism he can in place
to sow doubts about the legitimacy of our elections.
His real end-game is a replay of 2000, when the election of
the President was taken out of the hands of the voters, and turned over to the
Supreme Court.
Yes, in the scenario that I have laid out above, there are
Constitutional grounds for an invocation of the 12th Amendment, but
there is a huge legal battle to be fought over the notion that state
legislatures have the right or the true justification to withhold electoral ballots
and deny their citizens their say in the election of the President. Readers
should feel confident that the DNC already has the equivalent of a good-sized
law firm researching, war-gaming, and preparing to go toe-to-toe with any legal
argument that Trump’s Republican Party attempts to advance.
Now, let's step back from Mr. Palast's specific 12th Amendment scenario, as there is a broader point to be made.
In every state in which the margin of victory is narrow, expect that on Wednesday,
November 4, a fusillade of lawsuits will come thundering forth... perhaps from all of Ohio,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida, and Pennsylvania. Demands for
recounts will only be part of the matter. Republicans will attempt to
de-legitimize adverse outcomes by claims of voter fraud, and Democrats will
counter with allegations of voter suppression and intimidation.
Trump will do everything in his power to push the narrative
of an invalid election, all to the purpose of pushing the actual decision of
who won to a Supreme Court that leans Conservative.
Should he succeed in that objective, we may well encounter a moment in December, 2020, or January
2021, when the fate of our election rests in the hands of a Supreme Court in
which four conservative judges will dutifully line up behind Trump, and the
four liberal judges will staunchly fight for Biden. The fate of our
election – the final arbiter of 130,000,000 votes – will be one man: the Chief
Justice of the United States, John Roberts.
Think about just how tenuous our hold on democracy really is if the future of our Republic comes down to the judgment of one person.
I take heart that John Roberts’ decision to side with the
liberal wing of the Court on three major cases is a sign that he is not a
hostage to rigid ideology or partisan interest.
Moreover, over the years, we’ve had hints in the body
language that John Roberts has little regard for Donald Trump. Most notably, there was the harsh
scolding Roberts dished out when Trump complained that there were “Obama
judges” in the Federal courts.
I may disagree with Roberts, profoundly at
times, but I think he is a patriot and that he knows Donald Trump hasn’t the
slightest interest in the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of
powers. I suspect Roberts finds that despicable.
Indeed, there is a tiny, whispering voice that wonders
whether Roberts intentionally stood left of center on the three major recent cases
simply to send a signal to Donald Trump: try to screw with the election, and
watch where I stand.
Ah, but isn’t that just one more example of the sweet, naïve dreaming of an
idealistic liberal that I warned about at the opening of this piece?
In his inaugural
address, John F. Kennedy deftly toggled back and forth between lofty, idealistic goals and tempering doses of sober, clear-headed realism about the dangers of the emerging modern world. In his concluding paragraph, he landed on the issue of personal responsibility. "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
The only way to mitigate the blunt instrument force that
Donald Trump intends to take to our 2020 election is to make the margin of
victory too big to doubt, too big to question.
The only way to bury the lawsuits is to render them moot before they are filed… to
win by such a margin that the disputed ballots in one polling place do not
change the results of the county, that a dispute in one county does not change
the result of a state, that the results of one state do not change the outcome
of the Electoral College.
The vote is, at is has ever been in our democracy, our turn
to speak. It is time to hit Trump with our very best shot. We will only get
one.
No matter what polls may say today, it is not enough.
When people like Barack Obama ask you if you are really
doing enough to elect Joe Biden, that’s what he means.
At this grave moment in our history, we can never do “enough” work to save our
democracy.
We can never do “too much” work to vanquish the soulless,
bitter, hollow, inadequate man who would casually toss away our freedom to
preserve his own privilege.
Less than one hundred days from now, the fate of a great
experiment in self-rule will face one of its greatest tests.
If these turn out to be the final 100 days of our freedom, how
will you say that you spent them?
If you would like to be on the Born
To Run The Numbers email list notifying you of each new post, please write us
at borntorunthenumbers@gmail.com.
Thanks Steve for getting my blood boiling on a gorgeous Saturday morning
ReplyDeleteI needed to know this. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThis is the most likely scenario.The 12th amendment is something I didn't think about.
I'm surprised you didn't comment on the insecure voting machines themselves. Any thoughts on that?
ReplyDeleteThere is a flaw in Palast’s scenario. To prevail in the electoral college when the votes are opened and counted on January 6, one needs “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” The key term in the 12th Amendment is “appointed.” Were a state to withhold its electoral votes then it has not “appointed” electors and effectively disenfranchises itself. In that scenario the “whole number of Elector’s appointed” is less than 538 and whatever that number is, a majority of it elects the President.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless the possibility of manipulating the electoral college is even scarier than Palast’s scenario. This law-review article is a must-read:
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol51/iss2/3/
The law review article I posted the link for above is by Edward Foley, Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law and Director, Election Law @ Moritz, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
ReplyDeleteFoley points out that by federal law it is the executive of each state (presumable the governor, or the secretary of state) not the legislature, that certifies the electoral votes and sends the "ascertainment" of the votes to Washington. He then then goes on to lay out a scenario, in important ways similar to Palast's, where the state's legislature intervenes on the grounds that the constitution places the authority to "appoint" electors in the state legislatures. In Foley’s scenario, rather than withholding the states electoral votes, the state legislature appoints a competing slate of electors and submits those votes to Washington, so that on January 6 there are two competing returns from the state. The article uses Pennsylvania as the example.
There are a number of scenarios which go far outside the "usual" election processes to result in opportunities to manipulate a "victory" for Trump. And there clearly is a motive for the manipulation. Opportunity and motive are classic tests to determine is there could be a crime.
ReplyDeleteHowever, let me suggest a few circuit breakers.
1. the greater the election margin, the less likely any manipulation will be sufficient to overcome the margin. Goddard's consensus Presidential Election Interactive Map displays a consensus view of numerous, relatively independent, estimates. The current margin is
Donald Trump: 125 Joe Biden: 320 Toss Up: 93
If that margin holds, there would need to be extraordinary interventions to deny an Electoral College majority to Biden.
2. Intervention in elections sufficient to impact outcomes assumes widespread competence, integrating voter registration interference, on the ground disruption at the polls, election law claims, legal and political arguments sufficient to provide cover for those trying to cast doubt, and partisan allegiance in courts, legislatures and executive branches. I have an extraordinarily pessimistic view of Trump's campaign developing such competence.
3. It assumes such actions would not trigger Democrats to take equivalent actions to disrupt Republican victories.
4. Even if everything in the plan DID come together and the vote goes to the House, it would be the 117th Congress. We don't know what the partisan balance of state delegations will be. Nor do I believe that every Representative would vote in a partisan block -- especially if the race had been "called" for a candidate. I hope the extreme of "stealing an election" would be a step too far for some.