Opinions need to be based on facts

The top of the editorial page reads “Opinion.” I read this page to see the reasons people offer for and how they express theirs. I often disagree but accept that people have different opinions and often allege facts for which there is no evidence. But the editor should aspire to a higher standard.

Sunday’s editorial misstates several facts. It alleges claims of election fraud have been disproven. No court has heard the evidence of fraud. All cases have been rejected on procedural grounds such as plaintiffs’ standing to plead the case, timing of the suit, etc., but have never ruled on actual evidence. It alleges that LaMalfa and the GOP are not following the Constitution. GOP’s argument for rejecting certain states’ electoral votes will be based on the indisputable fact that these swing states did not follow their current election laws as passed by their state legislatures. The Constitution explicitly gives sole power to define how a state’s election is to be conducted to the legislatures of each state. Several states changed their procedures via judicial ruling, governors, secretaries of states or local election officials’ edicts in violation of the Federal Constitution. This has the unfortunate effect of invalidating the states entire federal election results. It was up the new Congress to determine how they will act on GOP electoral vote objections, but the GOP and Representative LaMalfa were, in fact, defending the Constitution. These facts are easily verified and a disservice to readers that they were misstated.

— Dale Burrow, Chico