Various political commentators and media outlets have been discussing potential election disasters and efforts to overturn the results. Rick Pildes, in a recent article on Lawfare, explains why many of these scenarios overlook the legal guardrails that are in place to prevent such events from occurring.
As the upcoming Election Day approaches, there is a heightened sense of anxiety among Democrats regarding potential attempts by partisan actors supporting Donald Trump to manipulate the 2024 election. Trump himself has made comments suggesting that the only way he could lose is if there is cheating involved, hinting at a possible repeat of the events seen in 2020. While the threat is real, much of the speculation surrounding the methods Trump or his supporters might use to overturn the results could unnecessarily increase voter anxiety. However, there are legal, institutional, and political safeguards in place to counter these partisan efforts.
In a recent piece in the New York Times, Neal Katyal outlined several nightmare scenarios for a potential election crisis where corrupt partisan actors could attempt to deny Vice President Kamala Harris a legitimate victory if she were to win the election. Yet, in each scenario presented by Katyal, the existing guardrails should alleviate these concerns.
Some of these guardrails have been in place for a long time, while others were established as part of the Electoral Count Reform Act. Collectively, these measures protect against many of the common nightmare scenarios involving rogue governors, electors, or state legislatures. Regarding Congress, Pildes writes:
Would Congress defy the ECRA and act unlawfully? Rejecting a state’s electoral votes would require a majority in both houses of the newly elected Congress. Regardless of which party controls the House and Senate, the margin is expected to be narrow. Even if Republicans were to have a majority, it would only take a few members to adhere to the ECRA provisions they helped draft to prevent any attempts to steal the election.
While the election may still face challenges and disputes, the concerns about potential theft or subversion of the legitimate results fail to consider the legal and other safeguards that are in place.
The article concludes:
While it is impossible to make the system completely foolproof against all risks, there are concerns about potential delays in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where laws prohibit the processing of absentee ballots until Election Day. Such delays could lead to suspicion, distrust, and efforts to disrupt the vote-counting process. Post-election partisan actions to manipulate the process could erode public confidence, cause disruptions, and even result in civil unrest. However, there are more mechanisms in place than many anxious commentators realize to ensure the lawful outcome of the 2024 election.
