Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Next Capitol stress test for democracy: What if the Senate won't seat Georgia's winners?

Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warrnock

There's no guarantee that Mitch McConnell will allow Jon Ossoff (left) and Raphael Warnock to take their seats in the Senate without a fight.

Paras Griffin/Getty Images
Johnson is executive director of Election Reformers Network, a nonprofit founded by international election specialists to promote electoral improvements in the United States.

The Senate election results in Georgia have Democrats dancing in the streets and democracy advocates cheering another seemingly successful high stress election. Turnout was extraordinary for a runoff, election officials performed efficiently, and fears of conflict and voter intimidation proved unfounded.

But there could be trouble ahead. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock will not officially become senators, and cannot swing control of Congress to their party, until they are seated by the Senate. That normally mechanical procedure could become the next round in our never-ending partisan dogfight.

If either Republican candidate contests the results — as President Trump and his allies will surely insist — it will not be Georgia's stalwart secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, with the last word on who won. Nor will it be the Georgia Supreme Court, or even the U.S. Supreme Court.

The "Judge of the election of ... members" of the Senate, according to the Constitution, is the Senate itself.

For the vast majority of elections to both the House and Senate, this quirk — let's be more honest, this flaw — in our founding document does not pose a problem. Normally, with losers having conceded, the House and Senate dispense with a vote and permit the state-certified winners to take their seats.

But little else has happened normally this year, and with control of the Senate in the balance and Mitch McConnell still in charge, we should not be surprised if another challenge to our democracy is ahead.

McConnell did try to protect the Electoral College count from objections, but he did so less on principle than to avoid politically difficult votes for his caucus. At least for the election between Ossoff and David Perdue, the closer of the two on Tuesday, there are certain to be GOP claims asserting Perdue's victory. McConnell will be tempted to call for the Senate to investigate before seating a winner — which would mean depriving himself of the gavel.

In a parallel situation from 23 years ago, the GOP-controlled Senate seated the state-certified winner in Louisiana, Democrat Mary Landrieu, even as an investigation dragged on for months before affirming her 5,000-vote victory. By that precedent, McConnell should arrange for a vote to seat Ossoff and Warnock as soon as their victories are certified.

Maybe the terrible events at the Capitol on Wednesday will bring a stop to such brinkmanship, but it should not be surprising if McConnell again ignores a precedent that interferes with his exercise of power.

Adding to the complexity are at least two contested elections where legislative bodies are playing a role. In Pennsylvania, the GOP-controlled General Assembly is refusing to seat the state-certified Democratic winner of a close state Senate election until a legal challenge is completed.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has agreed that the House Administration Committee will investigate the claims of Democrat Rita Hart, who is asking the House to use its constitutional prerogative to overturn her loss in Iowa's 2nd District. Pending the outcome, the House has seated her Republican opponent, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, certified by the state as the winner by a scant 6 votes.

The most legendarily bitter incident of the House using this power was 35 years ago. The Democratic majority voted to seat one of their own, Frank McCloskey of Indiana, after the state certified the winner as Republican challenger Richard McIntyre. Selective acceptance of evidence by the majority-run panel that investigated the dispute produced a four-vote McCloskey margin and led to a Republican walkout in protest. Subsequent investigations by journalists made clear McCloskey should not have been declared the winner.

Pelosi should take steps to avoid that kind of outcome in the Iowa contest — and to set a model for any Senate investigation of the Georgia elections. The House Administration Committee has seven Democrats and three Republicans, so Pelosi should see to it that a subcommittee with equal representation of both parties is given charge of the investigation. If the panel deadlocks, the victory for Republican Miller-Meeks as certified by the state should remain in force.

Doing so would put pressure on McConnell to conduct any Senate investigation in a similar bipartisan manner. And the Senate should follow both its own precedent and the House's approach to Miller-Meeks and promptly seat the state-certified winners from Georgia pending any investigation.

More broadly, there are lessons here from the fact that our Founders gave Congress judgment over the election of its own members. Writers of a constitution today would not take that path because of the clear conflict of interest and risk of abuse by the party with legislative control.

At the beginning of the world's long democracy learning curve, the Founders naively believed parties could be kept out of governing institutions, and they failed to anticipate how a political party could use this and other ways of controlling elections to keep itself in power.

France provides an instructive comparison. Its earlier constitutions followed the American example and gave its legislature the right to judge elections, which led to abuses. France's current Constitution, ratified in 1958, ended that practice and established a Constitutional Court as the definitive source of judgment on all national elections.

Our courts have moved over time to something of a similar role, but inconsistently and incompletely. Here as elsewhere our antiquated system is very vulnerable to the partisan will to hold power. That leaves us to hope that Senate Republicans improve on their track record and do the right thing.

Read More

Is the Ban on Abortion More Important Than Democracy?
Abortion at the Dinner Table
Getty Images

Is the Ban on Abortion More Important Than Democracy?

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 93 prosecutors from 29 states vowed in a statement that they would not pursue abortion cases. In return, 17 states have attempted to pass laws curbing prosecutorial discretion, a legal principle that has existed since the United States’s founding.

On average, more than a quarter (28%) of cases are dismissed by prosecutors for various reasons, including insufficient evidence, constitutional violations, procedural errors, lack of resources, more pressing priorities, or negative public opinion. Prosecutors are public servants, propelled to power by the people, committed to justice. They make decisions based on the tenets of their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
Vance Makes Push To Increase Support for Trump’s Big Bill in Ohio, but Locals Remain Divided

Vice President JD Vance speaks to the Metallus workers in Canton, Ohio to speak on the Big Beautiful Bill on Monday, July 28, 2025.

Angeles Ponpa/Medill News Service

Vance Makes Push To Increase Support for Trump’s Big Bill in Ohio, but Locals Remain Divided

CANTON, Ohio — Vice President JD Vance returned to Ohio on Monday to promote the Trump administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” casting it as a path to revive local industry and reward workers.

Inside the Metallus steel plant, Vance was welcomed by local officials and workers who embraced the tax and labor provisions. Outside, critics voiced concern over cuts to health care, education, and safety-net programs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red Wave Health Care Tsunami is Coming

It may be shrewd politics, but it’s disastrous policy: offer upfront benefits like tax cuts but delay the painful provisions for future years.

Getty Images

Red Wave Health Care Tsunami is Coming

It may be shrewd politics, but it’s disastrous policy: offer upfront benefits like tax cuts but delay the painful provisions for future years. That’s exactly what Congress has done with the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). Don’t be misled by the name. This partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is, in effect, the largest cut to health care in U.S. history.

The bill is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion and reduce financial assistance to those who buy insurance through ACA Marketplace by another $268 billion over the next decade. Admittedly, the bill will provide some tax benefits, primarily to those with higher incomes, but at tremendous costs to many of our friends and neighbors.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats: From Programs to Policy – a New Vision for Families

"...The overreliance on programmatic solutions has left Democrats without a coherent policy framework to meet the needs of today’s families," writes Capita CEO/Co-Founder Joe Waters.

Getty Images, The Good Brigade

Democrats: From Programs to Policy – a New Vision for Families

As the Democratic Party reassesses its direction after last year’s electoral losses, it's encouraging to see new initiatives like Project 2029—a proposed, albeit late, answer to Project 2025—taking shape. But as Democrats rethink their policy, narrative, and electoral strategies, they risk repeating a familiar mistake in domestic social policy: substituting programs for policy.

By “programs,” I mean the specific interventions—like subsidies, grants, and services—designed to address particular social problems. Useful tools, yes, but too often, they are treated as ends in themselves. By “policy,” I mean the broader vision and principles that guide and integrate those tools toward a coherent national goal.

Keep ReadingShow less