Not a Joke: Dems Hatch Plan to Disqualify Every Single Trump Electoral Vote

If cosmic justice prevails, then any Democrats involved in this proposed plot will go the way of the 19th-century Federalists.

In an opinion piece published by The Hill on Thursday, Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, former editors-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, respectively, showcased their authoritarian sensibilities by urging Congress to invoke the 1887 Electoral Count Act and invalidate President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in the Electoral College.

The proposed plot, which has no chance of success, depends upon Democrats’ shopworn cry of “insurrection!”

Indeed, Davis and Schulte devoted six of their 12 drivel-filled paragraphs to the absurd argument that Trump tried to overthrow the federal government during the unarmed Capitol incursion of January 6, 2021, and that this alleged “insurrection” disqualifies him from the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If that argument sounds familiar, it is because Democrats in multiple states tried to remove Trump from their 2024 ballots using the same ridiculous assertions. Of course, they did not succeed.

On Nov. 5, of course, Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris, winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote.

Nonetheless, Davis and Schulte insisted that Congress must act to prevent Trump from taking office.

According to a report published by the Congressional Research Service on Dec. 8, 2020, the Electoral Count Act established two bases for formal objections to electoral votes.

“The general grounds for an objection to the counting of an electoral vote or votes would appear from the federal statute and from historical sources to be that such vote was not ‘regularly given’ by an elector, and/or that the elector was not ‘lawfully certified’ according to state statutory procedures,” the report read.

Davis and Schulte rested their entire argument on the phrase “regularly given.”

“A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words ‘not regularly given,” they wrote.

Then, they explained exactly how the objection would take place.

In short, 20 percent of the members of both houses of Congress must sign a petition objecting to the votes. Could the insurrectionist Democrats find 87 House members and 20 senators to sign such a petition?

Then, a bare majority in both houses could decide to disqualify Trump’s votes.

“If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president,” Davis and Schulte wrote, apparently with blitheness toward the obvious consequences of such a coup.

Of course, the authors know full well that congressional Republicans would never agree to such a thing.

“But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution,” they concluded.

Needless to say, the argument advanced by Davis and Schulte should have both legal and political consequences.

First, note that they made much ado about the phrase “regularly given” but not about the phrase “lawfully certified.”

A vote not “regularly given” simply means “irregular.” Thus, do not suppose that the authors discovered some breathtaking constitutional principle. They merely insisted that the language of the Electoral Count Act covers their shopworn “insurrection” argument.

But what about “lawfully certified”? Did the states that certified the 2020 election for President Joe Biden do so lawfully in cases where they unconstitutionally altered “state statutory procedures”?

Either way, those who objected to the certification of those 2020 electoral votes had EQUAL right to voice their objections under the Electoral Count Act. Moreover, they had far better cause to do so given the 2020 election’s actual irregularities.

And what happened to those people? Well, in many cases, establishment tyrants spent four years ruining their lives.

Thus, Trump’s incoming administration did not need another reason to investigate and punish 2020’s real insurrectionists. But, thanks to Davis and Schulte, they certainly have one.

Second, as for political consequences, one wonders why, after such a resounding electoral defeat, Democrats would exhume their “insurrection” lie.

After all, more than 77 million Americans heard that lie and rejected it at the ballot box.

One wonders, therefore, what could explain such reckless dishonesty from two Ivy League lawyers. Do they simply live in a bubble where everyone else believes the same lies they do? Or does their proposed plot reflect a desperation that runs much deeper?

Should elected Democrats possess a modicum of sanity or awareness of self-interest, they will flee from this plot.

Otherwise, they will surely go the way of the Federalist Party.

Near the end of the War of 1812, disaffected Federalists held a secession convention at Hartford, Connecticut. That state, in particular, had developed a reputation as a den of so-called “blue light Federalists,” pro-British actors in America who allegedly flashed blue lights on shore as signals to British warships that American vessels would try to run the British blockade.

At Hartford in 1814, those pro-British delegates did not ultimately vote for disunion. But they did agree to present to Congress a list of demands.

Unfortunately, for the Hartford delegates, their demands arrived in Washington, D.C., around the same time as two pieces of glorious news: the signing of the peace treaty ending the war, and reports of General Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans.

Thus, while the nation celebrated, the grumbling Federalists brought upon themselves the taint of disloyalty.

As a result, they did not merely suffer electoral defeats. Instead, the Federalist Party effectively disappeared. By 1820, in fact, it ceased to exist as a national entity.

Should they follow the advice of Davis and Schulte, Democrats will have earned the same fate.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.