Introduction
Amidst the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the United States of America held the presidential election where former president Donald Trump competed against Joe Biden, the 47th vice president. Donald Trump was seeking re-election but lost to Joe Biden by the popular vote and the Electoral College (Baccini et al., 2021). However, Donald Trump refused to concede defeat, arguing that the elections were rigged. He did not back his assertion with any evidence but only argued that fraud led to stealing votes. At that moment, Trump instituted several legal actions to oppose the election results in several States, but none succeeded (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Trump then led his supporters to fight the election results, and this led to widespread disruption, which ended up culminating in violent events on the 6th of January 2021. On that day, a mob of his supporters attacked the Capitol in Washington DC. This invasion was characterized by a breach of security protocol, the destruction of office material, and disruption of Electoral College results, which Congress was carrying out. Multiple deaths were reported, together with injuries and damages to the building (Luke, 2023). In response to this, the House of Representatives impeached Trump because he was violent against the government. The House of Representatives referred to his speech before the insurrection in passing the decision (Jacobson, 2020). In that regard, there is a controversy around the presidential elections carried out in 2020. The question then arises of the legal options available to a presidential candidate who believes the polls were conducted against the law’s specifications rather than opting for insurrection. This paper, therefore, proposes to look into the tenets of the US electoral system. It also looks at the constitutional framework surrounding the legislation pertaining to presidential elections, significant legislative acts, court rulings, and past administrative procedures. This strategy attempts to draw attention to the legal options and processes open to contenders wishing to contest the outcome of a presidential election based on anomaly or fraud. The study also suggests examining the circumstances that could have led Trump to feel he had a constitutional avenue for contesting the presidential election results. As a result, this paper will be an essential reading for everyone interested in learning about electoral laws, US democracy, and governance.
Legal Framework for Presidential Elections
The United States Constitution, statutes, and court rulings serve as the foundation for the legal framework for issues about presidential elections. This essay examines the fundamental elements of the legislative framework that set forth the guidelines for presidential elections in the US. This includes the Electoral College system and the constitutional amendments throughout the United States history, as well as the interpretation of the Supreme Court on matters related to election disputes. Article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution establishes the Electoral College as an essential body in the presidential election process. It serves as a formal way of determining the president and his vice (Hill, 2023). However, the Electoral College was initially considered a compromise mechanism during the Constitutional Convention. The Electoral College system works by a structural allocation of a specific number of electors to all the states of the United States, depending on the representation in Congress. After the electors have been allocated, they vote to determine the president and the vice president. The vote of the electors in an electoral college is perceived as a representation of the will of the citizens who elected the Congress representative (Muller, 2020). Aside from the identification of the president and the vice president, the electoral college system was also structured to ensure that there is a balance between the interests held by small States and those of the largest States to safeguard and protect the smaller States from any form of manipulation or undue influence during the selection of the executive arm of the government (Schultz, 2020).
Several amendments have been made to electoral laws in the United States of America. One of the main amendments is the 12th Amendment. It introduced critical adjustments and modifications to how elections were to be conducted in the United States of America. It is to be noted that before the enactment of the 12th Amendment, the system required the casting of votes by electors for two candidates. After the voting, the first candidate with the most votes became the president, and the second one in line became the vice president. However, with the implementation of the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, the system changed, requiring separate voting for the president and the vice president. The Electoral College also solved the historical challenge where no candidate could secure most electoral votes from the citizens. The Amendment allowed the House of Representatives to intervene, giving it the power to select the president from the recipient of the top electoral vote. This signifies the evolution of the electoral system in the United States and the need to align the laws and policies of the land with the ever-changing circumstances and challenges facing the Society. Aside from the Constitution, several critical Supreme Court decisions have significantly shaped how election laws in the United States are interpreted and applied in the event of a dispute. One of the foundational cases is the case of Bush v. Gore (2000). The case resulted from the presidential race between George Bush and Al Gore. There was a dispute regarding the certainty of the announced vote in Florida and a move to recount the votes cast. However, the Supreme Court stopped the recounting process, establishing the court’s role in determining disputes related to election results. This case, therefore, shows that the courts impact its determination. Thus, the court’s authority must be sought if there is an election dispute instead of opting for other ways of addressing the problem. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled in other cases, such as Reynolds v. Sims (1964) and Baker v. Carr (1962), that fairness and equality must be considered in every election. The state should ensure that all the citizens have their positions considered and freely choose a representative to represent them in the national legislative process.
Legal Options for Challenging Election Results
Having outlined the legal framework for presidential elections in the United States, examining the legal options to challenge the results of an election is critical to determining the rationality of the actions taken by Trump’s team.
If a party is dissatisfied with the outcome or process of an election, they have various legal avenues to address their matter. These legal measures that can be taken are structurally put in place to rectify any anomalies that would occur. The three main measures that can be considered are administrative actions and judicial and statutory remedies. The Constitution of the United States grants state legislators the power to put laws that guarantee free and fair elections within their jurisdictions. This is provided for under Article 1, Section 4, clause 1 of the election clause. This piece of legislation exchanges the authority of the state legislators to manage matters related to campaign financing restrictions, accessibility of ballots, and voter eligibility.
Additionally, it is required that state electoral laws are followed in setting up essential election elements such as the procedures to be followed during and after the voting process, the date, and the voting place. Additionally, state laws were required to be observed as applicable during audits and recounts of votes. However, this condition is subject to the limitation of a different specification by the United States Constitution. Therefore, these positions give a state the authority to determine the circumstances under which a candidate can request for votes to be recounted. This borrows from the principle of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all voters the right to be treated equally before the law during the election process in a way that prevents discrimination and bias.
On the other hand, judicial recourse gives the judiciary the power to resolve election disputes. The courts satisfy this constitutional purpose by interpreting the relevant laws depending on the facts of the case and the constitutional provisions guiding matters before the court. However, the Constitution does not provide for filing lawsuits expressly on the issues related to the election. This does not discredit that a candidate or a stakeholder can approach the court for redress since the First Amendment gives every individual the right to petition the court to redress grievances they have suffered. Judicial review in this context can be sought through the federal or state courts. However, the only circumstance under which the courts are to be invoked is if there is a case related to an alleged violation of constitutional rights and election laws. As highlighted in the case of Bush v. Gore, courts can hear evidence, assess the arguments presented before it, and determine the matter related to an election dispute by rendering a judgment. This process considers the Constitution’s equal protection principle during an election recount. This shows how significant the judiciary is in promoting the integrity of the electoral process and fostering the principles of democracy and the rule of law in the United States of America.
Lastly, administrative bodies cancan keep an eye on the voting process and intervene if a party voices concerns about the necessity of a forum to discuss their concerns. The States have established two sets of bodies that oversee the elections as free and fair. These bodies are the election commissions and the supervisory boards. However, the Constitution does not expressly provide for establishing an election commission. Despite this position, States have established commissions and boards responsible for ensuring that elections are conducted in a manner that follows the law. They are tasked with ensuring that the elections are carried out openly and in an accountable process. There is a further authority for the state electoral authority to conduct administrative reviews regarding the polls. These inspections are purposed to ensure that the behavior of workers within the polling stations is as required and that their election supplies are secure and well set to prevent any anomalies during the registration of voters. If a constitutional right is violated during the electoral process, then the administrative authorities have the legal capacity to take corrective actions.
Additionally, they are allowed to modify the procedures to be followed during elections to prevent future issues of electoral disputes. They also can retain any official working for the electoral department if they are found to have engaged in election irregularities. With this, it is essential to ensure that the election process in the country is transparent and equitable to increase the public’s confidence in the political system. This study indicates that there are legal options that could be pursued by a party that believes its rights were violated during the election process.
Trump’s Legal Strategy
The primary strategy employed by Donald Trump’s team was to claim widespread voting fraud in the 2020 election. Regarding this stance, Trump and his advisors have stated it unequivocally and clearly in several public and media appearances. The organization said that voting machines at many places had been tampered with and that votes were occasionally cast by the deceased. They continued by claiming that Joe Biden’s victory resulted from foreign meddling. The team was bold in their remarks but did not back up their statements with proof. Therefore, this made it difficult for the former president’s legal team to present credible evidence to substantiate their allegations against Joe Biden and the bodies in charge of the election. This subsequently undermined their legal standing and credibility.
In his arguments, Trump relied on various provisions of the constitution and state election laws and decided cases to assert that there was election fraud during the 2020 elections. However, the courts dismissed the assertions because of a lack of evidence in as much as the First Amendment Amendment Constitutional Trump’s right to express his claims before the courts. In trying to prove his case, Trump relied on several cases and invoked electoral statutes but failed to withstand the legal scrutiny his allegations faced. His efforts to challenge the election results through litigation were, therefore, dimmed because of the discrepancy between his claims and the reality presented by the evidence he had. Trump and his team filed over 60 lawsuits in different jurisdictions to seek legal redress against the election results. However, the lawsuits were dismissed because of a lack of solid evidence that the court could rely upon to make substantive decisions.
Constitutional Ambiguities and Flaws
Even though the US Constitution contains admirable clauses about voting rights and elections, its intricacies and ambiguities make it difficult to serve as the most excellent guide for establishing free and fair elections. One of the inherent ambiguities is the concept of the Electoral College and constitutional amendments. The force of scrutiny comes from the position that the Electoral College and constitutional amendments have the potential to impact the integrity and fairness of elections negatively. The challenge of the Electoral College is that it needs to provide a more detailed framework and requirements for electors who usually participate in the voting process to identify the president and the vice president. This questions its reliability and transparency (Edwards, 2023). In as much as the Constitution establishes the Electoral College and its task in the democratic process in the US, it does not provide the minimum qualification for electors who participate in the voting. As a result of this, the electors are chosen by political parties. This selective identification of electors by political parties leads to variations across the States in terms of selection of members. The Electoral College is not uniform and, therefore, cannot be relied on as a consistent and fair composition of an electoral system (Egorov & Konstantin, 2023).
Aside from the uncertainties in the Electoral College system, it also has the challenge of accommodating faithless electors. These individuals choose not to follow their party’s position in casting their electoral ballots by deviating from the state’s popular vote. However, this is not to communicate that the United States of America has the challenge of faithless electors. The question is whether their existence in the system made it possible for the electoral system to be manipulated (West, 2020). The Constitution has no binding mechanism for electors to follow; it derogates from the principles of democracy and erodes the public’s faith in the electoral process.
Aside from the Electoral College, the constitutional amendments are modern-day interpretation and application challenges. The fact that the 12th Amendment, which came into force in 1804, only addresses some situations that may lead to disputed elections fails to clarify the process of electing the president and vice president. Looking into the historical context when the constitutional principles regarding the electoral process were set in place, it is seen that the circumstances have changed. Therefore, its applicability cannot directly address issues facing the current Society.
Comparison with Bush v. Gore
One of the significant election disputes in the United States of America is the Landmark case of Bush v. Gore. This case was decided in 2000 and is an essential legal source in US electoral history. There are specific differences and similarities compared to Trump’s case challenging the 2020 elections. One of the significant similarities is that, in both instances, the election led to legal action that focused on specific States and how they carried out the electoral process. This, therefore, triggered the question of whether the law guarantees equal protection and equal benefits of the law and whether it ensures that due process is considered during the electoral process. However, there is a significant difference between the disputes in that, while Bush revolved around recounting a single state, the argument made by Trump was that there was widespread widespread widespread fraud. However, Trump did not provide any substantial evidence to prove his case. The overall result of the electoral laws was not affected by the case. This is to be understood regarding when the cases were brought before the court. 2020, the political climate was highly polarized compared to the 2000 elections. Therefore, it was easy for the 2000 elections to influence the dynamics of the legal proceedings and shape public perception favorably of its position.
Conclusion
In 2020, the political climate in the US and the general public attitude were tense, leading to unprecedented controversies and challenges due to Covid-19. There was an electoral dispute between former President Donald Trump, who argued that the elections were not transparent and fair. He refused to concede defeat and relied on several constitutional provisions and legal precedents to persuade the courts to find that the elections were not conducted as required by the law. However, his cases were dismissed because no evidence substantiated his assertion. On the side of the legal framework establishing the rules and procedure of the electoral process in the United States of America, there are complexities and ambiguities, especially about constitutional amendments and the Electoral College. This challenge questions the integrity and fairness of the electoral process. However, the legal system provides a stable mechanism through which a party aggrieved by the electoral process can resolve disputes transparently and accountable. With that, this paper looks into the legal avenues open for parties that seek to enforce and safeguard the integrity of the elections. Conclusively, the events surrounding the 2020 presidential elections in the United States of America show how important it is to address electoral disputes legally and peacefully to adhere to democratic values and principles of governance. This will ensure that the rule of law is upheld and the integrity of the electoral processes guaranteed.
Work Cited
Baccini, Leonardo, Abel Brodeur, and Stephen Weymouth. “The COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 US presidential election.” Journal of Population Economics 34 (2021): 739–767.
Edwards III, George C. Why the Electoral College is bad for America. Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Egorov, Georgy, and Konstantin Sonin. Electoral College and Election Fraud. No. w31474. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023.
Hill, Walter W. “The Electoral College.” The United States Presidential Election of 2020: Evidence-based and Nonpartisan Perspectives (2023): 95.
Jacobson, Gary C. “Donald Trump and the parties: Impeachment, pandemic, protest, and electoral politics in 2020.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 50.4 (2020): 762–795.
Luke, Timothy W. “Democracy under threat after 2020 national elections in the stop the steal ‘ or ‘give more to the grifter-in-chief?’.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 55.5 (2023): 551–557.
Muller, Derek T. “The Electoral College and the Federal Popular Vote.” Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 15 (2020): 129.
Pennycook, Gordon, and David G. Rand. “Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 Presidential Election.” The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2021).
Schultz, David. “Minority Rights and the Electoral College: What Minority, Whose Rights?.” Ga. L. Rev. 55 (2020): 1621.
West, Darrell M. “It is time to abolish the Electoral College.” Brookings, The Brookings Institution 13 (2020).
write