Objecting to the electoral college vote is no constitutional crisis
Whether a U. S. representative or senator objects to the certification of the vote of the electoral college on Jan. 6 is not an indictment of their commitment to the country, the Constitution or their party. Nor is it any sign of crisis or danger that a significant number of members of both bodies are about to so vote. Every member of Congress is discharging a representative function, and some of the objectors are fulfilling that job.
Some, such as Sens. Josh Hawley, R-MO., and Ted Cruz, R-texas, have deep-seated reservations about the conduct of the election and wish to air them. Others want to remind the body of allegations they may not believe but which their constituents would like investigated.
I am not persuaded that any state vote, subsequent recount or court challenge should rise to this level of debate. Not one court in any case found the threshold level of evidence necessary to establish significant fraud, so I would not vote to object. But I am not a senator or representative. I didn’t think there was anything remotely approaching an impeachable offense a year ago, nor did 99 percent of Republicans in the Congress. But that didn’t stop Democrats from pressing on with a foolhardy impeachment that cost the country dearly.
“Following both the 2004 and 2016 elections,” Hawley said in announcing his decision to object to the electoral college count, “Democrats in Congress objected during the certification of electoral votes in order to raise concerns about election integrity.” He continued:
“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.”
Hawley is not arguing that his concerns are the same that animated Democrats in 2004 and 2016. He is saying his right to object for his reasons is as grounded in law as theirs was, and Hawley is correct.
In the debate that follows the objections, I hope no member of either body airs any false allegation. There are some concerns among conservatives that Pennsylvania and Wisconsin passed laws and adopted rules for voting that were unconstitutional under their state constitutions. Some argue, for example, that the Pennsylvania state legislature’s authorization of “no excuse” absentee voting in 2019 violated the Keystone State’s constitution. But anyone objecting to the way Pennsylvania conducted its election needs to look back to 2019, when voting reform passed the Pennsylvania legislature and was heralded by Republicans in the state legislature. Hawley and Cruz are both accomplished constitutional lawyers, and I will listen closely to their arguments. But I have not been persuaded yet. Indeed, the president’s legal team has never articulated in even one state much less the minimum of the three needed to change President- elect Joe Biden’s victory a claim backed by evidence that persuaded a court that any responsible citizen could repeat.
Even still, belief that a debate ought to be held on the topic does not trigger a constitutional crisis or a threat to democracy. Those claiming otherwise are overwrought actors in the never- ending Trump Derangement Syndrome-fueled drama among the Never Trump rump of Republicans and deeply partisan Democrats.
We are a constitutional republic. If the individuals charged with casting their vote behave within the bounds of the Constitution and their rights and obligations, all is well. Any time someone declares a crisis of democracy when they are in fact simply objecting to political actions or rhetoric, they are displaying an ignorance of the Constitution and its evolution to the present.
This state of hyper-alarm — of Paul Revere-like cries that “The democracy is threatened! The democracy is threatened!” — is corrosive to civil society. It is fueled by extremes and feeds the media’s endless pseudopanic about everything President Donald Trump does or says. Just about anyone who has proclaimed a “crisis” about something in the United States — save the pandemic — is ignorant of law and precedent, sometimes willfully so. They do not understand or refuse to admit that any process allowed by law is never a crisis.
Many are addicted to the fake endorphins of Twitter. It isn’t sexy to note that not much new is happening or that the new president will be sworn in on Jan. 20. It certainly isn’t necessary for people who hate Trump to declare again that they hate Trump and haven’t changed their minds. Attempts to disqualify some potential future presidential candidates are over the top.
Pay them no mind. The vote of the electoral college will be certified, and the country will continue. The vaccine rollout will plow forward, and new debates and heated arguments will break out. Those clinging to notoriety that Trump gave them had best find another source of faux outrage. This one is spent.