Trump's alleged fake electors lack a solid historical foundation.

Perspective: Trump's phony electors lack a historical basis for support

Last week, Trump was labeled as an unindicted co-conspirator in Michigan's case against 16 bogus electors. The very same day, he was thought to be "Unindicted Coconspirator 1" in an indictment discharged by the Arizona Attorney General's Office, accusing 11 GOP fake electors and seven others, including Rudy Giuliani, ex-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and ex-White House aide Boris Epshteyn, for conspiracy, fraud, and forgery related to a plan to keep Trump as president in defiance of Arizona's voters.

Six fake electors in Nevada are set to stand trial in January 2025, and Trump himself is among the indicted in Georgia's thorough inquiry into the bogus elector plot in that state. It's not shocking that Trump has dismissed the charges in Georgia, declaring his innocence and accusing prosecutors of a "witch hunt." Some prominent Republicans, such as Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, have proposed that Democrats have done similar things in the past. However, history tells a different story.

As a scholar who has studied presidential electors and the Electoral College for two decades, I believe it's crucial to sift through the chaos of claims like Johnson's to comprehend just how deceptive Trump's actions were.

In December 2020, Trump's White House senior advisor Stephen Miller stated on Fox News that an "alternate slate of electors in the contested states will vote, and we will send those results up to Congress." At the time, the argument was that because the Trump campaign's legal challenges to the election were making their way through the courts, it was important to cast these votes in case any of their appeals succeeded. There's indeed some precedent for their actions.

In 1960, both Republicans and Democrats submitted slates of electors to be counted before the joint session of Congress. In a situation comparable to Hawaii, then-Vice President Richard Nixon triumphed by just 141 votes in the state. However, in the midst of a statewide recount on December 19, members of the Electoral College across the nation were obligated to assemble. The initially confirmed Republican electors met and cast their votes in the official event, while Democrats gathered independently and signed documents asserting that they were the "duly and legally appointed and qualified" electors.

When Hawaii's recount ended on December 28, then-Democratic Sen. John F. Kennedy emerged victorious by just 115 votes. On December 30, a judge concurred with the recount findings. On January 4, the governor had the electors convene and sign fresh certificates that he also signed and dispatched to the joint session of Congress.

When Congress convened to count the Electoral College vote only two days later, Nixon was in a similar predicament as Pence. As former President Dwight Eisenhower's vice president, it was his mission to oversee the counting of electoral votes. Although he got three sets of certificates from Hawaii, he petitioned for unanimous consent that the votes for Kennedy be accepted as the authentic electoral votes from the state. Congress accepted.

The scenario in Hawaii in 1960 will be closely examined as investigators target bogus elector schemes. While it could be argued that the Trump campaign was just carrying out due diligence, with some precedent for their actions, what we've discovered points to something far more disturbing.

First, in contrast to the Hawaii situation, evidence uncovered by congressional investigators shows that the plan to have "alternate electors" cast votes in battleground states was created at least a month before the November election, fueled by Trump's longtime arguments against our electoral system. Trump advisor and conservative attorney John Eastman, who is also thought to be among those indicted in Arizona, commented on a draft proposal relating to an alternate elector plan in October 2020 and was present at the Ellipse with Trump when he declared on January 6, 2021, that "if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election."

Nevertheless, in that October draft letter made public by the House committee probing the January 6 unrest, Eastman expressed that he didn't believe the vice president had the authority to singlehandedly judge Electoral College votes: "Nowhere does it suggest that the President of the Senate gets to make the decision on his own," he wrote. Additionally, Eastman acknowledged as late as January 4 that the strategy would violate the law, according to Pence's lawyer's testimony before the committee.

Second, unlike the events in Hawaii in 1960, Trump pushed members of Congress - most notably Pence - to dispute or reject electoral votes in order to alter the election's result in his favor. He did so even though he was informed that Pence did not possess the authority to accept or reject electoral votes on his own. In 1960, Nixon accepted the second slate of electors the Democrats presented, stating it "properly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the electors chosen by the people of Hawaii." He did so despite the fact that the slate was not submitted in accordance with the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Trump pressured Pence to perform the contrary.

Join our mailing list for CNN Opinion

Connect with CNN Opinion on Twitter and Facebook

Thirdly, an essential point in the legal case against Trump is the indictment filed by special counsel Jack Smith over January 6. It details how Trump knew his claims of voter fraud were false and privately acknowledged he had lost but continued to make false statements claiming victory. If these allegations are proved correct, it would suggest that Trump was attempting to corruptly obstruct an official procedure and engage in various kinds of fraud. This is what differentiates his actions from mere politics to potentially criminal ones.

The events of January 6 and the fallout that followed prompted Congress to urgently consider and pass the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA). This bipartisan law aims to hinder any future attempts at seating fraudulent electors. Prior to Trump's antics, amending the 130-year-old Electoral Count Act was not on the legislative agenda.

To fully understand the ramifications of these accusations against Trump, and those who supported his endeavors, a historical and contextual perspective is crucial. As things stand, Trump has faced minimal political repercussions for his alleged attempts to pressure his vice president and overturn the election results. At present, he is favored to win his party's nomination in what's turning out to be a close contest with President Joe Biden. What remains to be seen is whether Trump and his Republican backers will face legal consequences for their actions in the January 6 plot, shedding light on the state of our democracy.

Read also:

In light of the ongoing investigations, some defenders of Trump argue that he was merely following precedents, such as the actions taken during the 1960 election when both parties submitted alternative electoral slates. However, the evidence suggests that Trump's plan was formulated much earlier and involved pressuring officials to overturn the election result, which significantly differs from the historical example.

This recent development has sparked heated debates about the validity of opinions. Some contend that Trump's actions were political maneuvers, while others believe they crossed the line into criminal behavior. Regardless, it is crucial to approach this issue with a nuanced understanding of history and context to make informed opinions.

Source: edition.cnn.com