Protecting Our Electoral Institutions
div class=fs-sm
pThe near‐crisis that American government went through between Election Day and Inauguration Day should have sobered up discussions of campaign and election law. To quote William Baude, “After the 2020 presidential election, the peaceful transfer of power can no longer be taken for granted.” Quarrel if you wish about how many weeks there should be of early voting, whether lockboxes should be continuously supervised, and so on. “But all of those ballots are wasted paper unless the winner takes power and the loser does not.”/p
/div
,
div class=fs-sm
pThat’s from an excellent newnbsp;ema href=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3868601 target=_blankCalifornia Law Reviewnbsp;/a/ema href=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3868601 target=_blankarticle/anbsp;by Baude, anbsp;law professor at the University of Chicago. (His paper is part of anbsp;symposium reacting to anbsp;lecture by law professor Pamela Karlan; see also thisnbsp;ema href=https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/17/the-real-enemies-of-democracy/ target=_blankVolokh Conspiracy/a/ema href=https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/17/the-real-enemies-of-democracy/ target=_blanknbsp;post/anbsp;summary.) His point is simple and timely: “We should not let long‐term imperfections in our democratic structure distract us from more immediate threats.”/p
pTo recapitulate—not that anyone reading this does not know—a losing presidential candidate refused to acknowledge his loss, and he enlisted supporters in anbsp;vain effort to overturn that result through both regular and irregular channels. He and his supporters put various actors—state legislatures and election officials, Congress, federal judges, the vice president—under intense pressure to stray from their legally and constitutionally prescribed roles, and in many cases to breach their duties. In most cases they resisted that pressure, and anbsp;constitutional crisis was averted. But will the lines hold next time?/p
/div
,
aside class=aside--right aside--large aside
div class=pullquote p-mb-last-child-0
pThere are plenty of sensible reforms that could improve the election process, but those aren’t the ones being considered. /p
/div
/aside
,
div class=fs-sm
pThis is serious stuff. As we know, one cannot obtain from much of the Republican world even an acknowledgment of the problem, let alone anbsp;focused policy response. You might expect better from establishment liberals and progressive reformers, who are under no such inhibition. Yet they too have proved unequal to the moment./p
pOne of their responses, for example, has been to double down on their years‐running theme of voter suppression, anbsp;proven base‐rouser. And yet that’s not what went wrong last year.nbsp;a href=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/28/turnout-soared-in-2020-as-nearly-two-thirds-of-eligible-u-s-voters-cast-ballots-for-president/ target=_blankTurnout surged/anbsp;notwithstanding the pandemic, includingnbsp;a href=https://www.brookings.edu/research/turnout-in-2020-spiked-among-both-democratic-and-republican-voting-groups-new-census-data-shows/ target=_blankturnout among minority voters/a. If voting should happen to be even less suppressed in 2024, and turnout rises by another percentage point, will the country be out of the woods from the dangers of disputed succession? (Leave alone the increasing evidence that high turnoutnbsp;a href=https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/chris-stirewalt/high-voter-turnout-does-not-favor-democrats/ target=_blankmay no longer be good for Democrats/a, as was long the political wisdom.)/p
pThen there’s the chief electoral legislation pushed by progressive forces in Congress over the past six months, thenbsp;a href=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text target=_blankFor the People Act/a. Almost none of the contents of this overstuffed bill respond to the events that unfolded between November and January. And we know why: It was largely composed of bills drafted long before November, aimed at scoring points in older fights, and often as symbolic exercises in signaling to constituency groups. Rather than reaching for anbsp;consensus on how to strengthen the electoral institutions that secure the peaceful succession of power, H.R. 1/S. 1nbsp;was assembled and promoted in such anbsp;way as to ensure that even the most moderate and solutions‐minded GOP members would line up against it./p
pBut leave aside the fate of thatnbsp;a href=https://www.cato.org/blog/partly-constitutional-doesnt-cut-it target=_blankmisbegotten bill/anbsp;and the mostly irrelevant debate over to what degree pandemic‐related easing of voting methods should be made permanent. Baude notes anbsp;third way in which would‐be reformers have concentrated at anbsp;front that at best is likely to misspend their energies, and at worst could prove dangerously counterproductive.nbsp;/p
pThat is the insistent and loud critique of national institutions such as the U.S. Senate (fails to generate reliably majoritarian outcomes, is subject to small‐state and rural bias); the Supreme Court (too many Republican appointees who supposedly got there through an unfair, if not “rigged,” nomination process) and of course the Electoral College (all‐time perennial punching bag). Baude agrees that all these institutions are flawed in one way or another, and that they might be redesigned to work in different and perhaps better ways./p
pBut these institutions also have something else important in common. In the clinch, they worked. The Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College not only withstood the pressure applied to each, but did not come close to failing (at least leaving aside the contingency in which Capitol rioters might have succeeded in taking anbsp;large number of senators captive). There was anbsp;serious challenge to the workings of anbsp;democratic transition, for sure, but it did not come from these institutions. Why are we asked to see them as the problem in need of urgent repair?/p
pMy favorite Baude paragraph is this:/p
blockquote
pIndeed, there is anbsp;tension between surfacing the flaws in our rules for democracy and enforcing those rules against democracy’s enemies. It is no more than anbsp;tension — one can very well say that it is important to enforce the Constitution’s rules for transferring power and also that those rules can and should be improved or understood in freer or fairer ways. But it is important to be careful of the tension lest we get carried away. Attack the legitimacy of the Constitution too much, and those attacks might catch on. If those attacks catch on, it is harder to convince members of the other party that they are bound by the rules they don’t like. Anbsp;very strong norm of saying “I’m sorry, those are the rules, and we don’t accept special pleading” turns out to be anbsp;very useful thing to have during an emergency — especially when the only person standing between the transfer of power and anbsp;constitutional crisis is the Vice President./p
/blockquote
pIn short, he writes, in facing off against the enemies of democracy, “the shield against them may be more formalism, not less. So we destabilize our current imperfect arrangements at our own peril.”/p
pIt’s not hard to identify the elements of what anbsp;more focused defense of electoral institutions might look like. It might include ballot security measures aimed at ensuring vote counts fully (as opposed to mostly) backed by checkable paper trails; reform of state election procedure, following the lead of states like Florida, so as to provide real Election Night vote counts and thus lay to rest suspicions that late‐reporting cities might have “dumped” anything; fixing the uncertainties in thenbsp;a href=https://www.cato.org/blog/congress-should-clarify-electoral-count-act target=_blankElectoral Count Act/a; steps to clarify the duties (and if necessary narrow the discretion) of state canvassing boards. That’s just anbsp;start./p
pBut first, we might need to move past the endless center‐stage squabbling over electoral and institutional issues that have nothing to do with fixing any of this. Do we have the will?/p
/div