Challenging a Presidential Election: Micro vs. Macro
It has been eight days since polls closed around the country. In the span of those eight days votes have been counted, lawsuits have been filed, and perhaps the most peculiar event: a media coronation. A Presidential election like no other, in its fraud, is being touted as a free and fair election. On Saturday, the Associated Press proclaimed former Vice President Joe Biden “President-Elect”. Without a concession from President Trump, with the presence of multiple legal challenges in pivotal states regarding vote counts, without anything except “projections,” the Associated Press made their play. Time will tell if it ends up being successful because this presidential election needs to be audited and challenged to the fullest extent possible. ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and even the holdout Fox News carried the headline; giving legitimacy to the idea that this election was the same as all the previous ones. It was not. The issue now is how to successfully go about challenging a presidential election and its results in front of SCOTUS.
Trump campaign lawsuits alleging fraud and irregularities coupled with social media posts reporting the same have been unsuccessful in shining the light on the true nature of this year’s election. The worst part of this lack of success? That the Democrats may actually be successful in their fraud. If the Trump campaign continues to focus on the small scale, meaningless challenges the Democrats will be able to run the clock out.
The Trump campaign lawyers are focusing on the micro- observers, sharpies, and the like. When they should instead be focusing on the macro- challenging the adherence by states to their own laws governing the verification and validity of absentee ballots (mail-in ballots). While most states have laws allowing for absentee ballots, the issue at hand has to be that when counting these ballots whether or not they are being cross-checked with the applications that the election boards have on file. That is the only way that it can be certified as an accurate, legal count of votes. Only then, can the actual outcome be known.
If this shift from the micro to the macro at Trump campaign headquarters does not take place; no number of small-scale challenges will change the outcome. While it is right for President Trump not to concede, that only buys him a finite amount of time. Time is all well and good so long as the shots you are taking hit their mark. Up until now they most certainly have not and with each day the window of opportunity closes.
If the Trump campaign and GOP were to instead ask for an injunction to halt either certification or counting (depending on the state the suit is filed) basing it on the necessity for the state to follow the criteria state law sets forth when referring to an “absentee” ballot in a presidential election. In most states that allow for absentee voting, this includes a list of voters who applied for an absentee ballot. The application must be on file with the corresponding voter information. Most states also set out deadlines for applying and deadlines for submitting the absentee ballot. A suit challenging the state’s adherence to its own laws in order to ensure a true, accurate, and legal count would not only be prudent but also necessary. This would offer the Trump campaign an opening to argue that the state has the obligation to make absolutely sure that every ballot that was sent in by mail corresponds to a voter on that list of absentee voters before it can be counted in the totals. Only after this has been done, with oversight of course, can results be certified. Deny this request would not only cause controversy, but it would also bring into the conversation another question: ” If there is nothing to hide, why not verify the absentee ballots?”.
This is the legal challenge that will successfully lead the Trump campaign to SCOTUS. The micro approach is only alleging issues of irregularities on too small a scale, which is proving to be unsuccessful. However, a shift in focus to the macro will illustrate to the courts the necessity to ensure the legitimacy of results on a large scale (statewide). This will increase the chances that between lawsuits in four or five states using this different approach, one suit will make it to SCOTUS.
While the Associated Press may want a quick resolution so they can play kingmaker; the American people deserve the right results, even if it takes time. The challenge would also put the issue front and center that by attempting to circumvent state law, some governors and other elected officials essentially broke state laws with their overreach. If a ballot sent in by mail corresponds to an application/request for an absentee ballot then that ballot, according to most state laws is valid. Therefore, a legal challenge based on these points would serve to protect voters, as well the laws that have been passed by making sure that all ballots that are counted are in fact lawful. Only then can the votes be certified and a winner declared. This rush to validate is serving to undermine the will of the people, adherence to the law, and integrity of the electoral process as a whole.