The election challenges, absurdly being resolved just as Election Day hits today even, are spawning absurd and contradictory moves by Donald Trump’s Justice Department and being batted away by the courts.
Rather than closing arguments about the voting, Team Trump is digging in for legal and political fights about who can vote and how to count ballots towards seating a Congress that will voice opposition to Trump’s policies.
Yesterday, on Sunday, it was Chief Judge Sharon Gleason of the U.S. District Court in Alaska who threw out the challenge over two “Dan Sullivans” on the ballot for Senate. She said she did not see how the federal government’s proposed solution to any confusion would solve the problem if it even existed — or how the approach could work given the right to a secret ballot is a core principle of American democracy.
On Friday, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the Justice Department’s demand that California set aside any votes by 20,000 individuals whom Homeland Security thinks may be non-citizens. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel—including appointees by Trump and Joe Biden in the majority — denied the Justice request for an injunction as constitutionally unsound and a risk to disenfranchising voters. A lower court had ruled the same way.
Justice says it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, if not again before the full Ninth Circuit – all under pressure of time. Justice has demanded similar action against “non-citizens” in Washington State, and Homeland Security has identified five states where they say they are seeking to identify all other states with non-citizens on voter rolls – which represent registration, not the filing of ballots for federal offices, which is illegal.
Apart from all else, Homeland’s still-secret guess at who might be a non-citizen has been horribly inaccurate in Nevada, where a check shows the number to be zero. Both California and Washington said a cursory examination of its lists found several errors, including American citizens, inactive voters and people who never registered to vote. Homeland says it considered 300,000 voter registrants to be non-citizens, whereas the cases of non-citizen voting are considered tiny and not a factor in outcomes.
On the same day, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson barred Justice from threatening to prosecute state and local election officials who do not follow the department’s directives for handling ballots – a move announced just a day earlier.Thompson said labor and civil rights organizations challenging Justice have shown that the department’s threats likely violate federal law and the Constitution and are “interfering with the lawful administration of elections.”
On Saturday, yet another federal judge questioned the timing and focus of voter registrant reviews in hearing a separate claim that these lists focus on minority voters.
We all understand that Justice is using – or misusing – its prosecutorial powers to advance Trump’s desires to forestall adverse election results tomorrow. What is not understandable is how Justice leadership would move ahead with threats of prosecution even as courts are busily eliminating the very thinking behind them, based on time, law and lack of authority in state-run elections.
Denial with Prejudice
The Alaska case had gained after press disclosures that Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign had helped “recruit” a second Dan Sullivan to the ballot already has been ruled legal by the Alaska Supreme Court. But the Republican governor and now the FBI are involved in raising questions – without citing law – about seeking to withhold certification of Peltola should she win the election. They will only certify incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan if he wins.
On Friday, without explaining how, Justice asked a judge to force Alaska to segregate ballots that may be affected by alleged voter confusion in the state’s Senate race. Depending on the outcome in several other states, this Alaska race could determine party majority in the Senate.
Democrats are setting up a central “war room” to coordinate legal challenges to the variety of attacks on voting. It is an incredible amount of time, effort and money to fight the personal whims of an egotistical Trump who still will not acknowledge an election loss six years ago.
Because the midterms involve state elections, the challenges are bound to be in many of the local battlegrounds where races are expected to be tight or flippable by party.
For state and local elections officials trying to run problem-free balloting, the election denial efforts by a federal government barred from interfering with local elections is a legal and political affront. The generalized idea that elections are “rigged,” or that there is “cheating” without evidence undermines confidence in the outcomes, of course, but it also is presenting local elections officials with practical threats.
It’s all very expensive political theater that threatens democracy itself in the name of salving Trump’s enormous ego.
Frequently Asked Questions About Trump’s Election Challenges
Why is the Trump Justice Department challenging election procedures?
The Justice Department has pursued legal actions involving voter eligibility, ballot handling and election administration. The administration argues that its efforts address election integrity concerns, while opponents contend that some measures exceed federal authority and risk disenfranchising eligible voters.
What happened in the California voter registration lawsuit?
A federal appeals court rejected the Justice Department’s request to set aside votes associated with approximately 20,000 people identified as potentially ineligible. The court raised constitutional concerns about the proposed action and the risk to eligible voters.
Why is Alaska’s Senate election facing a legal challenge?
The Alaska dispute involves two Senate candidates named Dan Sullivan appearing on the ballot. The Justice Department sought intervention over potential voter confusion, but a federal judge rejected its proposed remedy.
Can the federal government control how states conduct elections?
States have primary responsibility for administering elections, subject to federal constitutional protections and applicable federal election laws. Federal authorities may enforce voting rights and election laws, but their power to direct state election procedures is limited.
“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.
