Monday, November 2, 2020

Closing Remarks on Election 2020: My Presentation from 11/2/20

 

DR. NATHAN R. SHRADER

MILLSAPS COLLEGE

CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Remarks for New England College’s National College Convention

Monday, November 2, 2020; 10am EST

https://www.nec.edu/election-2020/?fbclid=IwAR0MWDxwcxNKP5B9Xnk2VDQBqySGF8Db3wmCO5dTpKF76DgB4-7GiLbMU5Y

 

Good morning and happy Election Day Eve to all of you! Thank you to the good people at New England College for inviting me to speak with all of you today.

I’m Nathan Shrader, chair of the Department of Government and Politics and Director of American Studies at Millsaps College. Greetings from the capitol city of Jackson, Mississippi.

Today I am pleased to report that Magnolia State voters have seemingly cast a record number of both in-person and mail-in absentee votes this year during our unusually competitive US Senate race between Cindy Hyde-Smith and Mike Espy and the constitutional amendment initiative to replace the old state flag featuring the confederate battle emblem with an “In God We Trust” flag, that will possibly be the subject of expensive litigation next year if approved tomorrow.[1]

When it was suggested that I talk about a specific thing that I find the most interesting or fascinating about the 2020 election cycle, I had to take several days to contemplate the thousands of possible topics in play for this discussion.

Even though I ruled them out as main topics, there are two things worth mentioning for posterity.

First, I think we will look back at 2020 as the year in which Andrew Yang broke the mold and appeared tie-less in all of the primary election debate. I’m hopeful this starts a new trend for all political debates and speeches. It’s 2020, not 1820. Powdered wigs and horse drawn buggies have faded away from use. It’s time for the necktie to do the same.

Second, the casting of Jim Carrey as Joe Biden is the worst addition to SNL in my lifetime, but that’s a topic for another day.

Now that these points are out of my system, I’d like to discuss what I think is the most interesting facet of the 2020 election cycle—at least from my vantage point—the ways in which the application of an originalist interpretation and implementation of American federalism has doomed the nation to a complicated, complex, and confusing patchwork system of election laws that will likely lead the country down a treacherous path in coming days regarding the counting and processing of our votes.

Because of the fast-paced nature of this election season, I decided to wait until Sunday morning to write these comments. As such, I woke up to several text messages about efforts by the Republican Party to disqualify nearly 130,000 ballots in Harris County, Texas.[2]

As I was prepared to talk more exclusively about this particular case, I learned around 3:00pm Sunday afternoon that the Texas Supreme Court rejected said GOP challenge without offering an opinion and the plaintiffs are expected to pursue this matter in federal court.

According to the Texas Tribune, the plaintiffs will inevitably argue in federal court “that drive-thru voting violates the U.S. constitution. A hearing in that case is set for this morning in a Houston-based federal district court, one day before Election Day. A rejection of the votes would constitute a monumental disenfranchisement of voters — drive-thru ballots account for about 10% of all in-person ballots cast during early voting in Harris County.”[3]

--

To put it as succinctly as possible, our unique system of American federalism ensures that power and responsibility is divided between the federal and state and/or local governmental units. Likewise, Dr. Edward Purcell, Jr. of New York Law School writes that  originalism “claims that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the ‘original’ meaning it held for those who drafted and ratified it.”[4]

Essentially, the application of federalism as it relates to the courts is a question of jurisdiction which is determined based on what law or statute is in dispute: federal, state, or local. The central problem today that underscores my topic is that American federalism is being interpreted and applied through an antiquated, originalist conception designed to limit and weaken the national government and federal authority. This leads to tremendous—and unnecessary—deference to the states.

In his 2007 piece, Originalism, Federalism, and the American Constitutional Enterprise: A Historical Inquiry, Professor Purcell introduced readers to the topic by noting that the combination of constitutional originalism and America’s unique system of federalism  represents “an intensifying effort to employ constitutional provisions to limit the powers of the national government and protect the sovereignty of the states.”[5] In my view, this is an apt description of what we are experiencing today.

As such, this marriage between originalism and American federalism ensures the United States has no coherent national policy or strategy regarding election management, voter registration, and the operation of programs such as absentee balloting, vote by mail, or how and when to begin counting ballots received.

This of course leads to contradictory rulings that fundamentally changes the voting experience—and what it means to partake in the democratic process—from state to state rather than a system that treats all Americans as citizens of the United States first and citizens of their respective states second.

Here are some examples drawn from this election cycle to underscore my point:

Ø  First, early voting. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 43 states and DC provide for some form of in-person, early voting.[6] The rest do not allow for the practice.

Ø  Second, mail-in and absentee voting. NPR reports that in this election cycle, 10 states automatically sent ballots to voters through the mail while another—Montana—allowed each county the option of doing so.[7] Voters could receive their ballot automatically and without requesting one from their county or the state.

    Meanwhile, 14 states did not automatically mail out ballots to voters, but they did distribute mail-in-ballot applications automatically.[8] This means that voters in those places could have received an application that still had to be completed and returned by a deadline which varied from one state to the next.

Ø  Third, what about excuses for voting by mail or absentee? 38 states required voters to request or apply for a ballot through the mail without an excuse required or fears related to Covid-19 were permitted as an excuse for voting by mail.[9]

      Five other states—including the one where I vote—require an excuse to be given to the county registrar and thanks to the infinite wisdom of the legislatures and Secretaries of State in those places, opted not to permit voters to use Covid-19 related fears as an excuse for voting absentee, either in person or by mail.[10]

Ø  Fourth, we have drop boxes. Lawfare reports that 40 states plus DC provide at least one drop box per county for voters who wish to deposit ballots while 20 are permitting completed ballots to be dropped off at polling places on Tuesday.[11]

This may sound like a step in the right direction. However, Lawfare indicates that just 8 of these states have explicit laws on the books that directly provide for the use of said drop boxes,[12] thus another avenue for litigation.

Ø  Fifth, there are ongoing disputes over the exact day in which ballots must be postmarked and returned. Look for these matters to be the subject of extensive post-election litigation, especially in a close race as this will inevitably be a flashpoint for legal action as the Republicans are going to challenge the validity of ballots based on the differences here.

    For example, here in Mississippi absentee ballots must be “Postmarked by Election Day and received within 5 business days of Election Day (by mail); Received 3 days before Election Day (in person).”[13]

      In battleground Wisconsin absentee ballots must be “Received by 8pm on Election Day.”[14]

     Meanwhile, in my native Pennsylvania—which has turned out to be ground zero for the final moments of this campaign—absentee ballots must be “delivered in-person, received by 8pm on Election Day. If mailed, postmarked by Election Day and received within 3 days after Election Day.”[15]

       In short, this is a mess and is an obvious source of legal action waiting to happen.

Ø  Sixth, let’s consider the temporarily resolved Texas curbside voting issue that led me down this path to begin with. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled for now that the ballots will stand, but some Republicans now banking on a federal court reversal and may be emboldened thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down curbside voting in Alabama last week on a 5-3 vote.[16] Again, there are no national standards for curbside voting, but instead a patchwork of complex and confusing laws.

Ø  Seventh, some counties in some states are able to legally count mail-in and absentee ballots in advance to expedite the process on Election Night. Others are not. In Pennsylvania for instance, some counties have yet to decide whether they are even going to count these at all on Tuesday or wait to begin doing so later in the week. Talk about additional confusion!

Ø  Eighth, how about those armed militants at the precincts? The Trump campaign has been recruiting volunteers under an official effort called “Army for Trump,” found at www.armyfortrump.com. Some of these folks may or may not be associated with the armed militants online who say they are going to be patrolling precincts at the president’s request. Are they allowed to brandish firearms at voting precincts?  In some places yes, in some places no.

According to the Brady Campaign, “There is currently no federal law prohibiting the presence of firearms at polling sites. Instead, regulation is left to the states, a large majority of which allow guns to be carried in and around a polling place.”[17]

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law cites a Gifford Law Center report indicating that guns are expressly prohibited in polling places in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and the District of Columbia, yet some states like Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina say firearms must be not be concealed. [18]

Does much of this sound convoluted, confusing, and confounding? Perhaps even perilous?

If you answered yes, you are not alone.  

And it brings me to the true issue at hand: are we first and foremost citizens of the states in which we live or of the United States itself?

This election cycle has led me to ask how our basic rights and privileges like the right to vote and the details associated with it can vary so greatly from state to state when we are all citizens of the United States?

This is where my head will be in the coming weeks, no matter who emerges as President of the United States and how it happens.

--

Having reviewed the deficiencies wrought by originalist federalism on this election cycle and our election laws, I want to make what may be a controversial point, but one I believe to be crucial.

The previous several months—and likely the coming several weeks—have and will continue to illustrate the deficiencies of federalism in hindering the creation of a much needed, truly national election process.

At the start of this talk I commented about the horse drawn buggy, the powdered wig, and the equally archaic necktie. Much like these contrivances, originalist-driven federalism has outlived its usefulness as a means of uniting a nation with fraying political, economic, ideological, and social bonds.

What would I propose instead?

Well, even though it is highly unlikely to come to pass in the near future, I recommend that most all facets of election procedure and management ought to be nationalized: uniform standards for registration, absentee ballots, early voting, Election Day protocols, counting ballots, and reporting of results in all 50 states plus DC. 

On top of this, universal, national registration for all American citizens when they turn 18[19] would help lessen the quagmire exponentially.

Will we ever get there? Hopefully, but perhaps not in my lifetime. However, the complications in these areas that have been a hallmark of the 2020 election cycle will not be forgotten moving forward into 2021 and beyond. Additionally, young voters like those in this conference today are considerably more astute and advanced than their older peers and those currently holding public office when it comes to these matters.

In addition to every other seemingly insurmountable challenge facing civilization, this is probably going to fall on their shoulders too.

Good luck, students. You have some enormous challenges ahead of you.

--

In conclusion, I want to leave you with a serious, somber point to reflect upon as we prepare for what could be long, contentious days and weeks ahead.

Most importantly, we have to count all the votes and leave the voice of no Americans behind. And this could take time.[20]

History will recall and judge the America that wakes up on November 4 as much as it will remember the America that finishes voting on November 3.

In his book, The Soul of America, historian Jon Meacham noted that President Lincoln’s first inaugural address included an appeal that we be guided “by the better angels of our nature.”

This week will be a test of this to be sure. Will our better angels of responsibility, honor, patience, reason, and virtue emerge on the morning of November 4 and the days that follow, or will we allow our lesser angels to shape our future?

We must together demonstrate our commitment to these virtues during what could be an unusually long and trying process of vote counting and election certification.

These will be days which demand patience and empathy with those tasked with managing the nuts and bolts of the democratic process.

Our better angels will be in greater demand than ever.

No matter who wins and who loses this election, we must all continue living together in the same country. In the same states. In the same counties. In the same cities and towns. On the same campuses.

Our response matters because we are all still in this together, no matter how worn the common bonds have become. No matter how exhausted we are. No matter how frustrated we have become.

In his first inaugural address, 132 years after Lincoln’s, President Clinton memorably stated that "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”

I would like to think this is still true of America and Americans in 2020.

Thank you.



[5] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] https://www.vote.org/absentee-ballot-deadlines/

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

No comments:

Post a Comment

Shrader Column: Joe Versus the Volcano of Outrage (Concord Monitor, 12/10/24)

   Thanks to The Concord Monitor for running my op/ed on President Biden's use of the pardon for his son: https://www.concordmonitor.com...