Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump assault on the election just hours away from a deadline he can't overcome

President Donald Trump in the Oval Office

President Donald Trump, seen at a Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony Monday, is about out of options for fighting his electoral loss.

Pool/Getty Images

Midnight marks a milestone in the tortured path that the election has been made to follow by President Trump's baseless campaign to debase democracy.

No matter how much legal spaghetti Trump and his allies throw at the wall — and there was a fresh batch Tuesday morning involving four states — none of it has a realistic chance to stick once the so-called safe harbor deadline passes in a few hours.

At that point, Joe Biden will cross one of the final formal thresholds before assuming the presidency, and the success of his final steps are supposed to be legally guaranteed and the American electoral system itself will be on the cusp of surviving one of its most extraordinary stress tests.


The safe harbor provision amounts to the payoff on an insurance policy when the states do what they're supposed to do. They get to put a shield around the people they are sending to the Electoral College so long as they meet the deadline for certifying their results and those results have withstood all legal challenges until the deadline passes.

By the end of the day every state is expected to have made the deadline. The next step is the electors meet across the country Monday to cast their votes: Biden has earned 306, three dozen more than the majority required, leaving Trump with a legitimate claim to just 232.

Under the law, written after the contested election of 1876, when Congress meets three weeks later to tabulate the votes it must accept as "conclusive" those 51 slates of electors and their ballots if there's no viable outstanding litigation. That means Trump's legal challenges have even less hope of changing the outcome than they have had so far.

And if there is only one slate of electors from a state, Congress must accept its votes — unless the Democratic-majority House (and the Senate) votes to reject them, which will not happen.

Any such challenge must be made by both a House and Senate member. Even if that happens, each chamber would then meet to resolve the objection and it would almost certainly fail, said Alexander Keyssar, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, who has studied the Electoral College.

Trump maintains he is being robbed of re-election by massive fraud the nation has yet to come to appreciate. His lawyers have offered a catalogue of claims, including conspiracy theories about voting machines being hacked by several countries.

But his campaign and his Republcian allies have been stymied so far in almost 50 lawsuits, mainly in battleground states he lost, and most of them quickly falling short for a total lack of evidence exposing irregularities. His side has triumphed just once — in a case involving bureaucratic authority, not malfeasance, that curbed Biden's margin in Pennsylvania by about 2,000 votes.

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, one of Trump's most vocal allies, announced one of the most ambitious claims yet. He said he had gone straight to the Supreme Court to allege that four battlegrounds where Biden got 62 electoral votes — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — had made unlawful changes to their election procedures in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

By failing to do enough to to protect their newly more lenient vote-by-mail systems from fraud, Texas alleged, the four states had diminished "the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution" and so their electoral votes should not count.

The court is not obligated to hear the case and precedent demands its original jurisdiction over fights among states should be applied rarely. But if the court fails to act before the electors vote, "a grave cloud will hang over not only the presidency but also the republic," Paxton said.

Attorney General Dana Nessel of Michigan called the lawsuit "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading." Attorney General Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, like Nessel a Democrat, said, "These continued attacks on our fair and free election system are beyond meritless, beyond reckless."

The high court has given Republicans in Pennsylvania until later in the day to make their best case about why all the absentee ballots in the states should be disallowed — even though the top court in the state has upheld the law setting out the rules for mail-in voting.

Two Trump campaign lawsuits in federal court, seeking to block Biden's wins in Michigan and Georgia, were effectively dismissed Monday.

But in Wisconsin, the campaign refiled an already-rejected complaint in state court on Monday over vote tallies in heavily Democratic Madison and Milwaukee. A hearing is scheduled for later this week, meaning that state could be the one to miss the safe harbor deadline.

But that would not deprive Wisconsin of its 10 electoral votes. Biden electors still will meet in Madison on Monday to cast their votes and there's no reason to expect a politically divided Congress would spurn them.

One House Republican, Mo Brooks of Alabama, says he will challenge electoral votes for Biden on Jan. 6. His effort would need at least one senator's support to get off the ground, and then the House and Senate — the latter probably with a GOP majority because votes from the day before in Georgia's two Senate races may still be getting counted — would debate the objections and vote on whether to sustain them.

The safe harbor law played a crucial role after the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court shut down Florida's recount hours before the deadline, cutting off Vice President Al Gore's avenue to carry the state and thereby win the presidency. He conceded to Gov. George W. Bush of Texas the next day.


Read More

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less