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

U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less

Alaska Is Voting on More Than Ranked Choice Voting. It’s Voting on Who Gets to Vote

Alaska voters will once again vote on a measure to repeal its nonpartisan election system. Those fighting to preserve the system have gone to the courts to make a simple case: It’s only fair that voters know exactly what is on their ballot.

Specifically the consequences of Ballot Measure 2, which would give parties the ability to shut out 60% of Alaska voters registered as independents. This is what attorney Scott Kendall argued before the Alaska Supreme Court last week.

Keep ReadingShow less
Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less