USA Today ran a story yesterday, Can Congress overturn presidential election results? Here are changes since Jan. 6, 2021, authored by Riley Beggin, about changes made to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 after what Biden called the “Trump’s mob” “broke into the US Capitol building as Congress convened to help formalize the results of the 2020 presidential election, interrupting the proceedings for hours even as some Republican lawmakers moved to reject the election results in key swing states.” Interesting how the possibility that the riot was instigated to stop the rejection of election results in swing states escapes Beggin. Of does it? The wording “even as some Republican lawmakers moved to reject the election results” suggests otherwise.
The changes made to federal election law got little fanfare at the time, but the “serious threat challenges to state certifications present” prompted an effort among lawmakers to address what they characterized as “ambiguities” and “uncertainties” surrounding the electoral count process. Subsequently, legislation was crafted to bring “clarity” to the system, with the ostensive aim of preventing a recurrence of the chaos witnessed on January 6, 2021—that is, to prevent the challenging of what Beggin refers to throughout as “valid election results.” Valid according to whom? The establishment and the corporate media, of course. That the change in the law was meant to make it harder for Congress to challenge election rigging and fraud should be obvious to everybody who grasps the nature of power and propaganda in the epoch of the corporate state.
The legislative changes were smuggled through Congress to the President’s desk in the year-end spending bill Biden signed in December 2022. Three elements of the new law are important for readers to know about (there’s a fourth concerning alternative slates of electors, but that gets us too far into the weeds, so I may take that up on another day).
First, a revision to the law “clarifies” the “ceremonial role” of the Vice-President in the process. “Clarification” is a way of changing the Vice-President’s role without debating that the character of the authority the Vice-President may have had at the time. It fixes history by building into the law the presumption of a ceremonial role. Second, the law creates an expedited court review process for electoral challenges from presidential candidates. If the review process continues as it has, i.e., dismissing cases for lack of standing, then expediting the process allows the establishment to more quickly establish a headwind against doubts about the integrity of an election. Third, the law raises the threshold to object to a state’s election results from one senator and one representative to one-fifth of both the House and the Senate, a change that effectively negates the point of the 1887 law. This is a step towards dismantling the Electoral College. as well as towards effective federal assumption of state and local elections.
Beggin notes that the “experts” (i.e., anti-Trump academics Beggin reached out to) acknowledge that the implemented changes have significantly reduced the risk of Congress or the Vice President overturning valid election results. “It is much better than it was; it was totally arcane. This reform really does provide a lot of important clarification and takes away some of the risks that we saw unfold on January 6,” said Rebecca Green, an election law professor at the College of William and Mary. “There are grave risks, but I think they’re a bit different than the risks that we faced in 2020,” notes Matthew Seligman, a legal scholar at Stanford University.
What are these grave risks? Beggin notes that, since 2021, Trump’s influence within the Republican party has strengthened, and a significant portion of his supporters express skepticism about the accuracy of election results. The decentralization of the electoral system and the intensified grip of Trump on the Republican party raise concerns about potential challenges to valid election outcomes in the upcoming years. Because the law effectively negates the role of Congress and the Vice President, the experts Beggin talked worry that efforts to influence election outcomes will concentrate more on state and local elections. The decentralized nature of the electoral system creates numerous potential points for legal disputes. Given how deep the tentacles of the establishment go, it is doubtful they will have much to worry about, but the desire for centralized authority is obvious—and antithetical to the federalized system the Founders established.
Beggin writes that the events of January 6 marked a pivotal moment in US history, prompting legislative changes aimed at fortifying the electoral process. However, as the nation heads into another election year, she warns, the uncertainties persist, and the spotlight shifts to potential vulnerabilities at the state and local levels. The irony is that the vulnerabilities at the state and local levels have been the focus on grassroots Republicans trying to shore up the electoral system, and Republicans have been thwarted in their efforts by state and local officials, including by establishment Republicans. The systems is rigged.
freedom and reason 