- Despite the numerous attempts by President Trump and his allies to undermine the outcome of the election, there is almost no chance he will still be in office after Jan. 20, 2021.
- While there are still a number of things that need to happen before Inauguration Day, there are two general ways that Trump could try to steal the election, though both are highly unlikely.
- The first is convincing the Republican-held legislatures in states that voted for Biden to claim the votes were incorrect, and send electors to the Electoral College who will vote for Trump.
- The second scenario would be for electors who pledged to Biden to vote for Trump instead. While this is something that happens, it has never changed the outcome of an election.
The Long Path Ahead
Former Vice President Joe Biden has been declared the winner of the election, but for many, it still feels like there is a lot up in the air.
President Donald Trump has refused to concede, and many in his administration are acting as though he’s been re-elected and will still be in office after the inauguration on Jan. 20. That’s also on top of the numerous lawsuits Trump has filed and the fact that he and his allies keep claiming, without evidence, there has been massive election fraud.
While there is still a lot that needs to happen between now and Inauguration Day, and the president’s undemocratic tactics are enough to make anyone uncertain, there is one thing that needs to be made very clear: it is extremely unlikely that he will be able to overturn the will of the people.
Let’s take a look at what will take place between now and the inauguration, and how the actions the president has taken fit into that timeline.
Certifying Election Results
The very first thing that needs to happen is that states must certify their election results. The exact method for doing this varies from state to state, but the general way it works is that whichever local election officials are responsible for election administration first must count all the ballots, double-check totals, and make sure every valid vote has been included in those numbers.
Once that’s all one, those officials report their final totals to the state, and then the head election official — usually the secretary of state — compiles all the results from the local officials and gives them to the governor.
Notably, each state has its own deadline for this process, and some have already completed it, which makes sense because as you can imagine, this takes a lot longer in more populous places.
Then, once a state’s governor has all the totals from every county and municipality, they have to send them to Congress for what is known as a “certificate of ascertainment,” which lists the certified number of votes cast for each candidate as well as the names of the state’s electors.
As for the deadline for those certificates of ascertainment, they just need to be given to Congress before the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 14.
Safe Harbor Deadline
There is, however, a big incentive for states to give Congress those finalized counts before what is known as the safe harbor deadline on Dec. 8. This deadline is incredibly significant because it is the date by which all legal challenges and recounts must be settled and electors must be solidified by states.
For some context here, electors are the people who cast votes in the Electoral College. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of electoral votes that state has. For example, Arizona has 11 electoral votes, and thus, 11 electors.
While the way electors are selected is different in each state. Generally, each party chooses a slate of electors at their state conventions or by a vote of a party’s central committee.
When the voters in a given state cast their ballots for president, the party of whichever candidate wins the popular vote gets to designate electors who will go to Electoral College in December and vote for the person who won their state.
That’s why you often hear the phrase “winner-take-all” when it comes to the Electoral College. In all states, except Maine and Nebraska, whoever wins the most votes in a state gets all its electors.
However, if there are unresolved disputes over election results because of lawsuits, recounts, or other issues with certifying final counts and electors, then this whole process becomes a lot stickier. This is where hypothetical situations for how Trump could steal the election come into play.
There are two overarching ways that this could happen, though again, both are very unlikely.
Scenario 1: State Legislatures and Electors
The first scenario involves getting Republican-controlled legislatures in states that gave the popular vote to Biden to overrule that mandate.
They can do this by claiming that the results are invalid and then invoking their constitutional right to step in and choose a slate of electors they believe more accurately reflects the election results of their state.
This would result in the legislature sending pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College to cast the state’s official vote for the candidate the voters of that state explicitly did not choose. Notably, the idea has floated by several conservative commentators, pro-Trump legislators, and, according to reports, even Trump himself privately among aides.
To be clear, what these people are proposing would be a full-blown attempt to steal the election and defying the will of voters by ignoring election results. As a result, any state legislature that would even consider doing that would face massive legal and practical hurdles.
Without getting too deep nitty-gritty of all of this, because the legal situation here is incredibly complex state to state, all you need to know is that Trump would have to get multiple Republican-held legislatures on board to do this in multiple key states in order to change the outcome of the election.
Currently, the president has only won 232 electoral votes to Biden’s 306, meaning he would have to get the legislatures in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia to all do this. Even then he would still be short one electoral vote.
So that is almost impossible in itself, and beyond that, even if Trump did get all those Republican legislatures on board, all of those states except Georgia have Democratic governors or secretaries of state that would not go along with that plot to steal their elections.
Even Georgia’s Republican secretary of state has pushed back against attempts from the right to undermine the election results and said outright there was no fraud.
Now notably, there is also a possibility — though also a far fetched one — that a state sends conflicting elector slates. This scenario would happen if the governor of a state that voted for Biden certified a Democratic elector slate, but then the state’s legislature appointed a competing pro-Trump elector slate that withstood legal challenges.
In that case, there would effectively be two slates, and Congress would have to decide which one to count. If the House and the Senate disagree, the governor’s slate would be the one counted.
Scenario 2: Faithless Electors
The second possible way Trump could steal the election, which is even more of a longshot, centers around the concept of “faithless electors.”
Under the current political system, when a state’s party selects its electors, those electors pledge to vote faithfully to their party. Right now, more than 30 states and Washington, D.C. have laws that require electors to vote for their party’s winning candidate, and roughly 20 states also have laws that cancel the vote of faithless electors or penalize them for going against their pledge.
But in the states that do not have these regulations, an elector could technically cast one of their state’s full electoral votes for the candidate that did not win it. While this is something that does happen — there were seven faithless electors in 2016 — they have never changed the outcome of an election.
In the case with the state legislature’s electors scenario, experts say that given the wide margin of electoral votes Biden has over Trump, it is essentially impossible Trump could get enough faithless electors to sway the election.
Once the electors have cast their votes on Dec. 14, the newly-elected Congress will formally count and certify the votes on Jan. 6. This process is largely symbolic but members still are allowed to object to the vote counts from any state.
If one House member and one Senate member each give written objections, those votes will be debated and then voted on by each chamber, though both have to reject a state’s votes in order for them to be invalidated.
Again, highly unlikely, and in order for the date of the inauguration to be moved, it would require a lot of Constitutional heavy-lifting. So with all that said, it seems almost certain Joe Biden will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021, and Donald Trump will no longer be president.
See what others are saying: (The New Times) (TIME) (The Associated Press)
Supreme Court Rules High School Football Coach Can Pray on Field
All of our rights are “hanging in the balance,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion.
Court’s Conservatives Break With 60 Years of History
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a former high school football coach who lost his job after he refused to stop praying on the field at the end of games.
Joseph Kennedy, who was hired at Bremerton High School in Washington State in 2008, kneeled at the 50-yard line after games for years and prayed. He was often joined by some of his players, as well as others from the opposing team.
In 2015, the school asked him not to pray if it interfered with his duties or involved students.
Shortly after, Kennedy was placed on paid administrative leave, and after a school official recommended that his contract not be renewed for the 2016 season he did not reapply for the position.
Kennedy sued the school, eventually appealing the case to the Supreme Court.
The justices voted 6 to 3, with the liberal justices dissenting.
“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” he added.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion.
“Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection,” she said.
“In doing so, the court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance.”
The defense in the case argued that the public nature of Kennedy’s prayers put pressure on students to join him, and that he was acting in his capacity as a public employee, not a private citizen.
Kennedy’s lawyers contended that such an all-encompassing definition of his job duties denied him his right to self-expression on school grounds.
“This is just so awesome,” Kennedy said in a statement following the decision. “All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys … I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle.”
Religious Liberty or Separation of Church and State?
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided that the government cannot organize or promote prayer in public schools, and it has since generally abided by that jurisprudence.
But the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has been increasingly protective of religious expression, especially after the confirmation of three conservative Trump-appointed judges.
Reactions to the ruling were mostly split between liberals who saw the separation of church and state being dissolved and conservatives who hailed it as a victory for religious liberty.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the Bremerton school district, said in a statement that the ruling “gutted decades of established law that protected students’ religious freedom.”
“If Coach Kennedy were named Coach Akbar and he had brought a prayer blanket to the 50 yard line to pray after a game,” one Twitter user said, “I’ve got a 401(k) that says this illegitimate, Christofascist SCOTUS rules 6-3 against him.”
“The people defending former Coach Kennedy’s right to kneel on the field after the game to pray – are the ones condemning Colin Kaepernick’s right to kneel on the field to protest police brutality against Black Americans,” another user wrote.
Others, like Republican Congressmember Ronny Jackson and former Secretary of State for the Trump administration Mike Pompeo, celebrated the ruling for protecting religious freedom and upholding what they called the right to pray.
“I am excited to build on this victory and continue securing our inalienable right to religious freedom,” Pompeo wrote.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Fox News)
Rep. Schiff Urges DOJ to Investigate Trump for Election Crimes: “There’s Enough Evidence”
“When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate,” the congressman said.
Schiff Says DOJ Should Launch Inquiry
Rep. Adam Schiff (R-Ca.) told Rogue Rocket that he believes there is “certainly […] enough evidence for the Justice Department to open an investigation” into possible election crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.
Schiff, who took the lead in questioning witnesses testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on Tuesday, said that it will be up to the DOJ to determine whether “they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal activity, but added that an investigation must first be launched.
“Donald Trump should be treated like any other citizen,” the congressman said, noting that a federal judge in California has already ruled that Trump and his allies “likely” engaged in multiple federal criminal acts. “When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate.”
“One of the concerns I have is it’s a year and a half since these events. And while […] there’s an investigation going on in Fulton County by the district attorney, I don’t see a federal grand jury convened in Atlanta looking into this, and I think it’s fair to ask why,” Schiff continued, referencing the ongoing inquiry into Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in Georgia.
“Normally, the Justice Department doesn’t wait for Congress to go first. They pursue evidence and they have the subpoena power. They’re often much more agile than the Congress. And I think it’s important that it not just be the lower-level people who broke into the Capitol that day and committed those acts of violence who are under the microscope,” he continued. “I think anyone who engaged in criminal activity trying to overturn the election where there’s evidence that they may have engaged in criminal acts should be investigated.”
Schiff Takes Aim at DOJ’s Handling of Committee Subpoenas
Schiff also expressed frustration with how the DOJ has handled referrals the committee has made for former Trump officials who have refused to comply with subpoenas to testify before the panel.
“We have referred four people for criminal prosecution who have obstructed our investigation. The Justice Department has only moved forward with two of them,” he stated. “That’s not as powerful an incentive as we would like. The law requires the Justice Department to present these cases to the grand jury when we refer them, and by only referring half of them, it sends a very mixed message about whether congressional subpoenas need to be complied with.”
As far as why the congressman thought the DOJ has chosen to operate in this manner in regards to the Jan. 6 panel’s investigation, he said he believes “the leadership of the department is being very cautious.”
“I think that they want to make sure that the department avoids controversy if possible, doesn’t do anything that could even be perceived as being political,” Schiff continued. “And while I appreciate that sentiment […] at the same time, the rule of law has to be applied equally to everyone. If you’re so averse, […] it means that you’re giving effectively a pass or immunity to people who may have broken the law. That, too, is a political decision, and I think it’s the wrong decision.”
On the Note of Democracy
Schiff emphasized the importance of the American people working together to protect democracy in the fallout of the insurrection.
“I really think it’s going to require a national movement of people to step up to preserve our democracy. This is not something that I think Congress can do alone. We’re going to try to protect those institutions, but Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail,” he asserted. “It’s difficult to get through a Senate where Mitch McConnell can filibuster things.”
“We don’t have the luxury of despair when it comes to what we’re seeing around us. We have the obligation to do what generations did before us, and that is defend our democracy,” the congressman continued. “We had to go to war in World War II to defend our democracy from the threat of fascism. You know, we’re not called upon to make those kinds of sacrifices. We see the bravery of people in Ukraine putting their lives on the line to defend their country, their sovereignty, their democracy. Thank God we’re not asked to do that.”
“So what we have to do is, by comparison, so much easier. But it does require us to step up, to be involved, to rally around local elections officials who are doing their jobs, who are facing death threats, and to protect them and to push back against efforts around the country to pass laws to make it easier for big liars to overturn future elections.”
“We are not passengers in all of this, unable to affect the course of our country. We can, you know, grab the rudder and steer this country in the direction that we want.”
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (CNN)
Senate Passes Bill to Help Veterans Suffering From Burn Pit Exposure
For Biden, who believes his son Beau may have died from brain cancer caused by burn pits, the issue is personal.
Veterans to Get Better Healthcare
The Senate voted 84-14 Thursday to pass a bill that would widely expand healthcare resources and benefits to veterans who were exposed to burn pits while deployed overseas.
Until about 2010, the Defense Department used burn pits to dispose of trash from military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, dumping things like plastics, rubber, chemical mixtures, and medical waste into pits and burning them with jet fuel.
Numerous studies and reports have demonstrated a link between exposure to the toxic fumes emitted by the pits and health problems such as respiratory ailments and rare cancers. The DoD has estimated that nearly 3.5 million veterans may have inhaled enough smoke to suffer from related health problems.
For years, the Department of Veterans Affairs resisted calls to recognize the link between exposure and illness, arguing it had not been scientifically proven and depriving many veterans of disability benefits and medical reimbursements.
Over the past year, however, the VA relented, awarding presumptive benefit status to veterans exposed to burn pits, but it only applied to those who were diagnosed with asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis within 10 years of their service.
The latest bill would add 23 conditions to the list of what the VA covers, including hypertension. It also calls for investments in VA health care facilities, claims processing, and the VA workforce, while strengthening federal research on toxic exposure.
The bill will travel to the House of Representatives next, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to push it through quickly. Then it will arrive at the White House for final approval.
An Emotional Cause for Many
Ahead of a House vote on an earlier version of the bill in March, comedian John Stewart publically slammed Congress for taking so long to act.
“They’re all going to say the same thing. ‘We want to do it. We want to support the veterans. But we want to do it the right way. We want to be responsible,’” he said. “You know what would have been nice? If they had been responsible 20 years ago and hadn’t spent trillions of dollars on overseas adventures.”
“They could have been responsible in the seventies when they banned this kind of thing in the United States,” he continued. “You want to do it here? Let’s dig a giant fucking pit, 10 acres long, and burn everything in Washington with jet fuel. And then let me know how long they want to wait before they think it’s going to cause some health problems.”
For President Biden, the issue is personal. He has said he believes burn pits may have caused the brain cancer that killed his son Beau in 2015.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer applauded the fact the long-awaited benefits could soon arrive for those impacted.
“The callousness of forcing veterans who got sick as they were fighting for us because of exposure to these toxins to have to fight for years in the VA to get the benefits they deserved — Well, that will soon be over. Praise God,” he said during a speech on Thursday.
A 2020 member survey by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America found that 86% of respondents were exposed to burn pits or other toxins.
Although burn pits have largely been scaled down, the DoD has not officially banned them, and at least nine were still in operation in April 2019.