Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

False victory claim rattles norms once more as Trump sues to stop democracy

President Donald Trump

"Frankly, we did win this election," President Trump incorrectly asserted in the East Room.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

This is what democracy looks like — except for the behavior of democracy's single most powerful influencer.

Thousands of election officials returned to their largely thankless but essential labors Wednesday, processing the returns of an extraordinarily close presidential election to assure the bedrock principle of American democracy gets met: The person with the most valid votes wins.

They have known for months that the complexities of tabulating tens of millions of votes returned by mail because of the pandemic may take days, especially in the battleground states. And it appears they have largely unified an otherwise harshly divided country around the concept that the wait for a clean and complete count will be worth it.

But President Trump, whose office is supposed to be the principal steward of democratic principles, doubled-down Wednesday in his total repudiation of that idea.


With millions of ballots yet to be tallied and no winner close to being credibly declared, Trump appeared in the White House's grandest room at 2:20 a.m. and brazenly asserted he had been re-elected. As a result there is no further need to count ballots, he said, adding without a shred of evidence that the tallying that started hours later was cheating and delegitimizes the outcome — and he plans to persuade the Supreme Court to declare him the victor, come what may.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election," he said. "So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don't want them to find any ballots at 4 o'clock in the morning and add them to the list. Okay?"

By the end of the afternoon, his campaign had followed up on the president's demands with a three-pronged legal blitz. It announced a lawsuit to halt the counting of votes in Pennsylvania and asked the Supreme Court to disallow the counting of votes mailed before the polls closed but arriving by Friday. It said it was suing to stop the count in Michigan on the grounds that GOP observers had not been allowed to witness the tabulating. And it demanded a recount in Wisconsin after virtually complete returns put Biden ahead by 21,000 votes out of 3.3. million cast

Trump's defiance and anger had essentially no effect on his followers, though. There were no reports of throngs of demonstrators taking to the streets or surrounding county election offices on his behalf. And his shameless claim was largely ignored by news organizations that kept their coverage on the ever-shifting count, and on explaining as never before why the delays were legitimate and in many cases enshrined in law.

The president's baseless claims nonetheless received rare, if still veiled criticism from some of his most loyal Republican surrogates. Voting rights groups convened a press call in which they urged the GOP to be even more forceful. "It's incumbent on everyone to be condemning misinformation that attacks our democracy," said Vanita Gupta, who heads the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

While it is "not unusual for people to claim they've won the election," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters curtly, "claiming you've won the election is different from finishing the counting."

"There's just no basis to make that argument," former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on ABC after Trump spoke. "It's a bad political decision, and it's not the kind of decision you would expect someone to make tonight who holds the position he holds."

Former Sen. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania described himself as "very distressed by what I heard" because "that there's fraud being committed by the people counting votes, I think, is wrong."

For his part, former Vice President Joe Biden declined to predict eventual victory Wednesday, even as his path to 270 electoral votes got clearer, although he underscored a commitment to govern as a unifier "once this election is finalized."

"Now every vote must be counted. No one is going to take our democracy away from us. Not now, not ever," the Democratic challenger said, adding "We the people will not be silenced. We the people will not be bullied. We the people will not surrender."

Plainly, no president has the power to order votes to stop being counted in any state. And his talk of doing so is only the latest of his efforts to disparage democratic norms in an effort to perpetuate his power, without precedent in the nation's history.

"There's no legal theory under which the Trump forces can do what the president is suggesting they're going to do, which is shut down the count," declared Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit election law firm. "I don't see any court becoming a part and party to that kind of effort to shut down the counting."

Former senior Arizona elections official Tammy Patrick, who now advises the Democracy Fund, which funds good government efforts, noted that the necessary delays in finalizing the numbers in the crucial battlegrounds of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were all the result of the same political dynamic: Republican-run legislatures refusing to enact changes to election law that would have speeded the count. Opening envelopes and processing millions of valid mailed ballots, which have been piling up for weeks in all three states, could not even begin until this week, most notably.

"When elections administration should be a practical question, in this moment, it has been weaponized," she lamented. "It has been a partisan battering ram."

At the same time, the prominent bipartisan advocacy group No Labels unveiled a 60-second TV ad underscoring the national need for calm during the count no matter how long it lasts — and pledging to respect the ultimate result, a hallmark of uninterrupted peaceful transfers of power since 1797.

"If we lose that, we lose everything," Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia says in the spot, filmed with GOP Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland. No Labels did not announce how much it was spending to air the aid, or where it would be shown.

Jeff Plungis contributed reporting.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less