The Role of Lawfare in the Legitimacy of Alternate Electors

“Lawfare” refers to using legal mechanisms to intimidate or obstruct your opponents. This practice of using the law to undermine political adversaries has become increasingly prevalent in American politics since 2016.

For example, former President Trump faced a decades-old sexual abuse accusation that lacked specific details, such as the date of the alleged incident. He could not provide the necessary information regarding when and where it occurred.

Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg accused Trump of falsifying business records, despite the offense being a misdemeanor charge and beyond the statute of limitations in New York.

Bragg also continues to pursue Trump’s hush payments to Stormy Daniels, even though federal prosecutors have declined to take action on the matter.

In another instance, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed charges against 16 Republican electors, accusing them of forgery, election fraud, and conspiracy related to the submission of alternate elector certificates during the 2020 election.

Similarly, in Georgia, 16 Republican electors and former President Trump are expected to face indictments for submitting an alternative slate of electors, despite ongoing disputes and legal actions at the time. A 1960 ruling in a similar situation in Hawaii confirmed that the electors followed a constitutional procedure when submitting certificates.

However, it is worth noting that a Politico article by Kyle Cheney criticized using the 1960 decision to validate the certificates, but later admitted that Democrats had taken similar actions to the Georgia GOP, and Hawaii ultimately reversed the state’s election results.

At this point, it is uncertain what will happen next in this ongoing controversy.

This article appeared in The Record Daily and has been published here with permission.