By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, December 15, 2020
Republicans stung by President Donald Trump’s humiliating
defenestration at the tremulous and senescent hands of purported
rutabaga-mafioso Joe Biden have made a lot of noise about the supremacy of
state legislatures in the matter of choosing presidential electors.
They may soon wish that they hadn’t — that expansive
legislative power is precisely the basis upon which Democrats intend to
effectively abolish the Electoral College.
According to the Constitution, presidential elections
work like this: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators
and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” Those
who believe that the state legislatures can — and should — invalidate some of
the state elections and hand a second term to Trump argue that, with the
exception of the minor limitations imposed immediately thereafter in the text
(“but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or
Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector”) the power of
state legislatures to appoint electors is effectively unlimited. Texas’s
asinine lawsuit challenging the election outcomes in four swing states was
based partly on claims that interventions in the elections by non-legislative
actors — governors and secretaries of state, and, most notably, the
Pennsylvania supreme court — rendered those elections unconstitutional.
(The dispute between the Pennsylvania legislature and the
state’s supreme court is a genuine constitutional question that should have
been settled in the legislature’s favor before the election.)
According to this suddenly ubiquitous view, state
legislatures can choose electors in any way they might dream up: a coin-toss in
Arkansas, choosing the taller candidate in Texas, an alligator-rasslin’
competition in Alabama, etc. Under this understanding, if the state legislature
of Georgia should, for example, conclude (with or without persuasive evidence)
that the election there had been thrown by fraud, then it could name pro-Trump
electors rather than pro-Biden electors, based only on its own judgment and
answerable to no one except next year’s voters.
Legislators could mandate a statewide vote. Or
legislators could consult a psychic, an haruspex, or Taylor Swift for guidance,
and proceed according to that advice.
This is shocking to the modern American imagination,
conditioned as Americans are to excessive respect for democratic majorities,
but it is not exactly without precedent. State legislatures relied on a variety
of means to choose U.S. senators before the unhappy passing of the 17th
Amendment and its mandate of popular elections, and presidential elections in
the early days of the republic were nothing at all like the campaigns we now
endure, as documented by the fact that George Washington was twice
elected unanimously without so much as a CNN town hall. (The original electoral
system, under which the runner-up in the Electoral College became vice
president, was bonkers, and was rightly done away with after President John
Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson found themselves in effect on
opposite sides of a war.) The United States of America is not and never has
been an Athenian democracy or anything like one. Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah)
was savaged for his insistence on this in his statements on “rank democracy”:
“We’re not a democracy,” he wrote. “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty,
peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank
democracy can thwart that.”
Democrats howled, but the senator is, or course, exactly
right.
So was John Adams when he made the same point 200 years
ago. The United States has all sorts anti-democratic features in its
government, not least of them the Bill of Rights. These counter-majoritarian
institutions, like the design of the representative republic as a whole, are explicitly
anti-democratic in that they either limit citizens’ ability to work certain
kinds of changes in government or, as in the case of the First Amendment or the
13th Amendment, take certain courses of action off the table entirely,
irrespective of how large a majority there is demanding them.
I am not here offering a disquisition on constitutional
interpretation, and I am confident that our usual model of conducting such
discussions — each side picks its preferred outcome and then reverse-engineers
an airtight constitutional case for it — will proceed with its usual
intelligence and prevail with its usual fruitfulness. But there are a few
extraconstitutional considerations here worth considering.
One is that while it may be the case that state
legislatures have broad authority to choose their electors as they will, it is
another thing entirely to change the procedure after the fact simply because
the election did not go your way. And let’s have the courtesy to admit that
that is precisely what happened. (Republicans have in this matter done the
double-doofus: making themselves look ridiculous and getting nothing out of it.
Usually, they at least get a tax cut.) Here, the specific question of
responding to election fraud is relevant, too: We know that election fraud
happens fairly often in these United States, because people get convicted on
election-fraud charges on a regular basis. But reformers would have a great
deal more credibility if they energetically took on fraud either (1) well
before the election, or (2) after winning an election. Donald Trump repeatedly
claimed that there was widespread fraud in the 2016 presidential election, but
neither he nor his administration really lifted a pinky finger to deal with
that issue until after he had flubbed his reelection. What’s happened since
Election Day is not a reform movement but a desperate — indeed, pathetic —
attempt to cling to power, along with a great deal of hysterical pantomime in
the broader for-profit Trump movement.
Similarly, if Georgia or Pennsylvania wants to change its
electoral procedures, let the legislators do so prospectively rather than ex
post facto. It’s not like there isn’t room for improvement. Personally, I’d
be perfectly satisfied letting state legislatures appoint slates of
presidential electors of their own choosing — and go back to appointing
senators, too, if we could clear the way constitutionally. But that is not the
system we have, and this isn’t Calvinball.
If conservatives really do believe that state
legislatures have unlimited power to choose presidential electoral however they
like, and they still believe that the day after tomorrow, then they don’t
really have a principled leg to stand on when it comes to the so-called
National Popular Vote (NPV) scheme, in which states agree to award their
electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes nationally rather than to
the candidate who wins in their state. John Koza, the grand poobah of the
National Popular Vote project, insists: “At
this point I think changing the system to something better is going to
determine whether there’s a dictator in this country.”
The parallel is striking: The Trump faction’s demand that
state legislatures set aside their states’ votes and award their electors in
some other politically informed way is, in the rhetoric of NPV advocates, such
a dire and immediate threat to democracy that . . . state legislatures must set
aside their states’ votes and award their electors in some other politically
informed way.
Koza and the NPV advocates are of course ignoring the
relevant history: Majorities very often are on the side of dictators.
Majorities are kind of dumb that way.
John Adams had it right.
No comments:
Post a Comment