I think that by now, the fact that this Presidential election is in the process of being stolen by the Democratic Party and its supporters is beyond reasonable doubt. In state after state, clear, unmistakeable evidence of electoral fraud is clear to see. We've discussed it in several articles over the past few days:
- "Yes, I think this is evidence of voter fraud. Cue the Supreme Court."
- "The statistical evidence for electoral fraud in 2020"
- "Electoral fraud becomes more obvious almost by the hour"
The first possibility for peaceful resolution is through the courts. I think we've all seen how partisan state courts can't necessarily be trusted to administer the law fairly and with equality. Too many have allowed electoral shenanigans to proceed unchecked. Federal courts have a somewhat better track record. However, the question is whether or not courts will be able to intervene effectively. Usually, a court decision must be based on hard evidence. Due to official obfuscation, it's doubtful that enough hard evidence of electoral fraud can be provided to obtain such a decision. What's more, those perpetrating the fraud have made sure to cover their tracks, so much so that hard evidence may be very difficult to obtain. We already have abundant circumstantial and inferential evidence, but I don't know how willing our courts - particularly the Supreme Court - will be to make rulings based on that. I daresay we'll find out over the next few weeks.
The second possibility for peaceful resolution is to use the mechanism provided by the Constitution of the United States. Clause Two of Section Two of the Constitution reads as follows (italic text is my emphasis):
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Note that although the usual practice that has developed is for voters to choose a state's electors, that power has been delegated by (and is still reserved to) the Legislature of that state. That Legislature can, at will, exercise its own constitutional authority to appoint those electors, rather than be bound by the popular votes cast (and/or disputed) in an election.
This issue has been extensively studied, and there appears to be no legal controversy as to its validity. In a 1962 study titled "Limitations on the Power of State Legislatures over Presidential Elections", James Kirby noted (bold, italic text is my emphasis):
... in McPherson v. Blacker ... holding that the fourteenth amendment created no right of popular election of presidential electors and did not freeze the practice of electing them as a unit on a state-wide basis, the Court characterized state legislatures' power as "plenary." The right of any legislature to resume appointment of electors itself was expressly confirmed and the Court even suggested that the absolute power of any legislature could not be abdicated by statute or limited by state constitution.
This was reaffirmed after the 2000 Presidential election, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed McPherson v. Blacker, and ruled (bold, italic text is my emphasis):
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
This provides a legal, legitimate, entirely constitutional means to counteract the electoral fraud we've seen over the past week.
So far, serious, credible allegations of electoral fraud have surfaced in (at least) Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. I therefore submit that the legislatures of each of those states should convene a special session to formally acknowledge the reality of such electoral fraud, and reassert their right to nominate the electors for their respective states, irrespective of the alleged result of the popular vote. They should do so without further delay.
Note that I don't specify any partisan political interest in those states. Their legislatures have all been elected by popular mandate, and therefore legitimately represent the people of their respective states. If they exercise their constitutional authority with regard to electors, that's an entirely normal and legal implementation of their rights, duties and responsibilities.
I therefore call upon those legislatures to assert their rights, duties and responsibilities, and remove the nomination of electors from a flawed electoral process. This will also remove the burden of deciding the election from a legal system that may not be able to act in the absence of hard evidence.
The question is whether the legislators of those states have the courage and political will to act. That's debatable. Too often, politicians choose to "go along to get along". They may fail to act, for fear that they'll be punished at the polls next election, or face reprisals from political opponents. Either may happen: but, in the final analysis, they were elected to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. This is one of them. They must act, or be derelict in those responsibilities.
Sadly, that won't prevent electoral fraud in other offices (for example, Congressional representatives or Senators). State legislators will have to find other ways to address those issues - and quickly. I don't know how that can be done, because I don't know the constitutions of each particular state. Certainly, in states where electoral fraud can be deduced and/or proved, the system of voting needs to be reformed to eliminate it as far as possible. This should happen right away, before the next election.
As far as the Presidential election is concerned, it seems to me that one or both of the measures we've discussed - court action to halt and/or overturn electoral fraud, and state legislatures arrogating to themselves their undeniable constitutional right to appoint Presidential electors - will be essential to overcome the shenanigans that confront us right now.
If neither measure is used, that leaves only one option, and that is direct resistance. That will almost certainly lead to a new civil war, the extent of which is unpredictable, and the results of which are likely to be at best destabilizing, at worst catastrophic, for our constitutional republic. God forbid that it should become necessary!
As for me, I chose my path when I swore the oath of Federal law enforcement service.
"I [name] do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
That oath has no expiration date. It is still binding on me. I shall keep faith with it.