USA TODAY International Edition

US braces for ‘ chaos’ as Election Day nears

Threats at home, abroad are setting off alarms

- Kristine Phillips USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – By Election Night of 1876, Democratic presidenti­al candidate Samuel Tilden was just one electoral vote from victory. But returns from four states that could still hand the presidency to his Republican opponent, Rutherford B. Hayes, were in question.

Both candidates declared victory, and the dispute dragged on for months. Threats of a civil war loomed. Voter fraud and intimidati­on ran rampant. Congress was forced to create an electoral commission that would decide the presidency. Voting along party lines, it declared

Hayes the winner by just one electoral vote.

By the time the country finally had a president, the inaugurati­on was just two days away.

“It was a violent time,” said Franita Tolson, an election law expert from the University of Southern California.

More than 140 years later, the looming chaos of the 2020 presidenti­al race – marred by threats at home and abroad – harks back to the ugliest, most antagonist­ic presidenti­al election in U. S. history.

A tsunami of litigation over election rules is already underway, and analysts expect more in November amid disputes over the legitimacy of mail- in ballots. A global pandemic that has killed more than 220,000 people in the U. S. has prompted a record number of Americans to vote by mail, creating at least two nightmare scenarios: Thousands of ballots could be rejected for various technical reasons, such as possibly mismatched signatures, and an anxious country may have to wait weeks for the election results.

Meanwhile, threats of foreign interferen­ce persist. Director of National Intelligen­ce John Ratcliffe said last week that Iran and Russia have obtained voter registrati­on informatio­n as part of an effort to spread disinforma­tion and undermine U. S. elections.

Stoking the anxiety and deep political divisions is the incumbent candidate himself. Lagging behind Democratic presidenti­al candidate Joe Biden, President Donald Trump has relentless­ly claimed that massive voter fraud involving mail- in ballots is underway and has made clear he expects a conserva

tive- leaning Supreme Court, with three of his appointed justices, to intervene in a disputed election.

Much of what might happen depends on how tight the race is.

“If the election is not very close, then I don’t think the election is going to get a lot of litigation,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert from the University of California, Irvine.

But if it’s close, Hasen said, expect a kind of “trench warfare” in several states.

The worst- case scenario, Tolson said, is violence in November as the country waits for days, if not weeks, for the election results. In an era of polarized politics and a high- stakes election, a losing party’s refusal to acquiesce, although legally meaningles­s, could lead to civil unrest, she said.

Already, law enforcemen­t agencies have sounded the alarm.

Threats of anti- government sentiment, civil unrest and disinforma­tion “will begin to converge with the presidenti­al election in November in a manner not previously experience­d by our nation,” Jared Maples, chief of New Jersey’s Homeland Security Preparedne­ss office warned last month.

The best course for the country is to accept that election results will be delayed and to let the process play out, said Penn State Harrisburg public policy professor Daniel Mallinson.

“There’s nothing we can do about the president and his rhetoric,” he said. “We need to cultivate this norm that we very well may not know who the president is on Election Night, and that’s OK.”

2020 could be worse than 2000

The tense recount in Florida in 2000, when the Supreme Court ultimately decided the close race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore, has recently found its way back to national headlines as pundits and political writers tried to find a modern- day comparison to the looming chaos of the 2020 presidenti­al election.

But comparing the two is difficult, and 2020 – depending on how close the race is in crucial battlegrou­nd states – could be worse and will put the country’s archaic election infrastruc­ture to the test, experts say.

“2000 is unusual because people felt like the Supreme Court decided the election. It is possible that the Supreme Court could weigh in on some of the election results in certain states that ultimately end up deciding the ( 2020) election. It is comparable in that sense,” Tolson said.

For the Supreme Court to be involved in deciding the next presidenti­al election, it would have to be close – a difference of only a few thousand ballots – in swing states, Hasen said.

“The odds of that happening … is small,” Hasen said, but he added it should still be a concern.

The issues on the ground are also different.

In 2000, tensions didn’t begin until after Election Day, when it became clear that the race was too close to call in Florida, Hasen said. The 2020 presidenti­al race is facing dueling controvers­ies that are already underway and could stretch for days, if not weeks, after Nov. 3.

The transfer of power

The 2020 candidates are also very different from Bush and Gore. Reflecting on his concession to Bush in December 2000 after weeks of litigation, Gore told Reuters in August that he didn’t want to further divide the country by dragging out the race.

Whether Trump will accept the result of the election if he loses is a question hanging over the controvers­ies and looming legal disputes.

After repeatedly refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, Trump said during a town hall last week that he will accept the results if he is defeated. But the president continued to raise doubts about the election process, claiming that “thousands of ballots” have been dumped.

While there have been instances of dumping ballots, the incidents are far from the scale or the massive conspiracy the president suggests.

In early October, the Justice Department accused a New Jersey mail carrier of discarding nearly 2,000 pieces of mail, including 99 general election ballots. In September, the Justice Department announced an inquiry into nine discarded mail- in ballots in Pennsylvan­ia.

Aside from claims of voter fraud,

fears over voter suppressio­n have centered on mailboxes.

In California, a ballot box was set ablaze this weekend, and fire officials were investigat­ing whether the act was an attempt to disenfranc­hise voters. Republican­s in the state had also placed unofficial ballot drop boxes at certain places, injecting further confusion over voting. Democrats decried it as an attempt to confuse voters, and state officials said it could be illegal.

Law enforcemen­t’s view

Although Attorney General William Barr testified before the House of Representa­tives n July that he had “no reason” to believe the election would be “rigged,” as Trump has said, Barr has more recently echoed the president’s claims that voting by mail is “very open to fraud and coercion” and likened it to “playing with fire.”

Recently, the Justice Department changed its longstandi­ng policy aimed at discouragi­ng election interferen­ce, with new guidance giving prosecutor­s more authority to take action on fraud allegation­s even as voting is underway.

Matt Lloyd, spokesman for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said earlier this month that the guidance was part of communicat­ion that is “routinely” sent via email to federal prosecutor­s during election season.

“No political appointee had any role in directing, preparing or sending this email,” Lloyd said.

Meanwhile, FBI Director Christophe­r Wray sought to tamp down concerns over voter fraud by telling a congressio­nal committee last month that authoritie­s had “not seen, historical­ly, any kind of coordinate­d national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.”

Despite the president’s claims of a “rigged” election, Wray and intelligen­ce officials reaffirmed their confidence in the nation’s election system. Officials said it would be difficult to manipulate voting results on a massive scale, al

though they said foreign adversarie­s are spreading disinforma­tion to sow chaos in the electoral process.

In a brief and hastily scheduled news conference Wednesday night, Ratcliffe said Iran and Russia “have taken specific actions” to influence the public. Ratcliffe said Iran had sent Americans false informatio­n, including fake emails “to intimidate voters, incite social unrest and damage President Trump,” as well as content claiming that fraudulent ballots can be sent from overseas.

“These actions are desperate attempts by desperate adversarie­s,” Ratcliffe said, adding that officials have not seen the same level of activity from Russia, although he confirmed the Kremlin had obtained voter informatio­n as it had done during the 2016 presidenti­al campaign.

‘ Fight will be in Pennsylvan­ia’

Hundreds of local, state and federal lawsuits already have begun in several states.

But perhaps no other state will be more closely watched than Pennsylvan­ia, experts say. It’s a battlegrou­nd state that Trump won by only 44,000 votes, or 0.7%, in 2016. Several polls show Biden leading in the Keystone State.

Pennsylvan­ia has been at the center of multiple litigation­s, one of which reached the Supreme Court. On Monday, the high court allowed Pennsylvan­ia to count ballots received up to three days after Election Day, a major defeat for Republican­s who have sought to limit mail- in voting in the state. The ruling could have an influence in several other states, including Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Minnesota, where the deadline for mail- in ballots has been the subject of court battles.

In Pennsylvan­ia, “there’s potential for a lot of chaos” if the race is as close as it was in 2016, Mallinson said.

“Pennsylvan­ia is in a place where we’re still getting used to mail- in balloting in the midst of this … high- stakes election,” he said. “Like Florida in 2000, the fight will be in Pennsylvan­ia.”

One likely source of chaos on Election Day is the state’s mail- in voting system that requires voters to place their ballots inside a secrecy envelope before putting them inside the return envelope, which may be too convolutin­g for many voters. In the presidenti­al primary in June, hundreds of voters neglected to put their ballots inside the secrecy envelopes. Some counties, like Philadelph­ia, accepted the “naked ballots,” while others rejected them.

In September, the Pennsylvan­ia Supreme Court decided that “naked ballots” will not be counted, causing an alarm among election officials over the possibilit­y that thousands of votes would not be counted in one of the most consequent­ial battlegrou­nd states.

The decision prompted Democrats to launch digital ads educating voters on how to vote by mail in Pennsylvan­ia.

“Will that be enough?” Mallinson said. “Anytime you have rules in place that make voting more complicate­d, you raise the potential of disenfranc­hising people. Are people in this case disenfranc­hising themselves?”

Lisa Deeley, chairwoman of the Philadelph­ia city commission­ers, shared a similar sentiment in a September letter urging state lawmakers to eliminate the requiremen­t for secrecy envelopes. With a higher- than- usual number of voters voting by mail for the first time in November, Deeley predicted that as many as 100,000 votes statewide could be rejected “all because of a minor technicali­ty.”

“It is the naked ballot ruling that is going to cause electoral chaos,” Deeley, a Democrat, wrote.

Significant delays feared in spots

Because of a record number of mailin ballots, swing states such as Michigan, Iowa and New Hampshire changed state laws to allow local election workers to start pre- processing mail- in ballots – that is, opening and sorting them and verifying signatures – either the day before or a few days before Election Day. In North Carolina, Florida and Ohio, pre- processing of ballots have already started.

Pennsylvan­ia and Wisconsin have yet to heed calls from local election workers to give them a head start. In Pennsylvan­ia, pre- processing ballots does not start until 7 a. m. on Nov. 3, raising the likelihood of significant delays in tallying election results.

State Democrats and Republican­s both agree local election workers should be allowed to pre- process ballots early. But negotiatio­ns have remained on a standstill as party leaders sparred over how much of a head start to give election workers.

Gov. Tom Wolf and Democrats wanted as many as 21 days – now a moot point with just a little over two weeks left before the election. Republican­s proposed three days, which Democrats rejected because the bill would have also banned drop boxes.

“In counties like Philadelph­ia, it’s going to take a lot of time just to open the ballots,” Mallinson said. “As Americans, we’ve gotten used to knowing who the winner is on Election Night. There’s a lot of pressure on Pennsylvan­ia to have a clear count as soon as possible.”

 ?? JOE RAEDLE/ GETTY IMAGES ?? Joe Biden supporters cross paths with backers of President Donald Trump on Oct. 18 in Miami. A bitter partisan divide, disputes over mail- in ballots and threats of foreign interferen­ce have dogged the 2020 campaign.
JOE RAEDLE/ GETTY IMAGES Joe Biden supporters cross paths with backers of President Donald Trump on Oct. 18 in Miami. A bitter partisan divide, disputes over mail- in ballots and threats of foreign interferen­ce have dogged the 2020 campaign.
 ?? LAURA RAUCH/ AP ?? The tight race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore in 2000 ended with a recount in Florida and a Supreme Court decision.
LAURA RAUCH/ AP The tight race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore in 2000 ended with a recount in Florida and a Supreme Court decision.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States