Ideas and Ideals

A few days ago, I wrote an article that seemed to either confuse or annoy some readers. The reason is that I described a legal argument for securing elections administratively that should work—in an ideal world—but is less likely in the world we live in.

The argument rested on two ideas:

1. The “Guarantee Clause” of the Constitution guarantees a “Republican form of government.”

2. Elected officials have the authority to enforce election laws without appeal to any superior authority.

Together, these mean administrators can act without waiting for courts or Congress. As I wrote in the article, the guarantee clause has never worked as the basis for this type of argument. Some readers reminded me of this, though clearly I am aware, or wouldn’t have mentioned it.

Elected officials may have authority, but they don’t always use it. Readers reminded me of this too, though I’d already flagged it as an issue.

My point wasn’t that we should just point out to the officials that they have the authority to check ID, fix the voter rolls, audit their own work, turn data validation on, etc. I am well aware that most officials likely already know this, and most of them are too corrupt to perform their duties.

I wanted to convey the fact that every argument that is based on anything else serves to obfuscate the real issue: official reluctance to fulfill their oath of office by exercising the authority given them to manage elections and enforce election law.

I have no objection to the civil lawsuits and criminal investigations already underway. That’s as it should be—villainy is better attacked from every angle than from one front alone.

It is quite possible that some of those lawsuits or criminal investigations will be successful. This does not change the fact that an administrative solution is the quickest to execute, if not the easiest to enforce, even if all the evil forces of Washington respond by coming after it hard. They would argue that county clerks and others do not have the authority to cancel contracts with third party election vendors, but that just means they get paid. So pay them to do nothing, cancel the contract, store their existing devices in a moldy basement, and conduct future elections the right way: on paper, no mechanical copying, counted by hand, and no mail-in ballots from anyone.

The immediate criticism is that the clerks won’t do their job. Probably true with many of them, but failure to perform their duties, particularly when it endangers their constituents’ voting rights, is impeachable. So impeach them.

Please don’t think I am content to leave organizational level election fraud unpunished. It should be punished severely. As I write that, images of cheese graters and pencil sharpeners come to mind. Despite that earnest wish for real, visceral punishment, it is also important to fix the elections. If I had to pick one to do first, as opposed to in parallel, it would be to fix elections. The reason is that dealing with individual wrongdoers doesn’t create as many tools to deal with the rest of them as does fixing election fraud.

Take back control of elections, and many bad guys will be voted out of office long before any investigation gets near them. Judges will be released, thus improving chances in the courts.

However, this isn’t an either-or situation. Both can be done simultaneously, and probably are.