Navigating Electoral Integrity: The Imperative of Genuine Federal Commissions

I hold a disdain for federal commissions, an enduring sentiment ingrained within me. However, the American populace finds themselves in dire need of one to delve into the intricacies of the 2020 election.

To reinstate faith in our electoral process, it is imperative that we undertake a comprehensive examination of the functionality of mail-in voting, meticulously dissecting its successes and failures, addressing issues such as uncounted votes, and definitively validating or refuting allegations of fraud.

My aversion towards federal commissions runs deep, an antipathy nurtured over time. These institutions, wielded by the machinations of Washington, often serve as mere palliatives for political turmoil, offering the illusion of accountability and reform. Thus, it pains me to admit the necessity of establishing a federal election commission – not akin to the proposals set forth by certain Senate Republicans, nor reminiscent of the ineffectual commissions of the past. What is required is a bona fide, unreserved federal commission, vested with the authority to scrutinize the events surrounding the 2020 presidential election.

Amidst the contentious challenge to the certification of election results, certain members of Congress advocate for a postponement of proceedings by ten days, advocating for the formation of a commission to “audit” the outcomes. While historical precedent exists for such a commission, it is far from commendable. Indeed, to laud the Electoral Commission of 1877 as a model of constitutional rectitude is akin to extolling the virtues of the Titanic as a paragon of maritime navigation – a misguided endeavor.

The Electoral Commission of 1876 was birthed from the tumultuous aftermath of the contested presidential election between Samuel Tilden and Rutherford Hayes. Tilden, having secured the popular vote and falling short of the requisite electoral votes, was embroiled in a battle fraught with allegations of fraud, epitomized by South Carolina’s certification of votes surpassing the total number of eligible voters.

Crafted as a compromise, the commission comprised fifteen members: five Supreme Court justices and five individuals from each chamber of Congress. Its composition was intended to be bipartisan, with seven Democrats, seven Republicans, and one independent. However, the maneuverings of the Illinois legislature, in an ill-conceived attempt to sway Justice David Davis in favor of Tilden, resulted in his appointment to the Senate, effectively vacating his position within the commission. His replacement, a Republican, tipped the scales in favor of Hayes, undermining the purported impartiality of the commission.

The Electoral Commission epitomizes the quintessential federal commission – a facade of political expediency veiled under the guise of governance.

The 9/11 Commission serves as another poignant example, orchestrated to shield vested interests from culpability in the negligence preceding the attacks.

Over the course of two years and at considerable expense, the commission traversed the globe, conducting interviews and amassing a trove of documents. Yet, its ultimate conclusion absolved individuals of accountability, attributing the failures leading up to the attacks to systemic shortcomings within governmental agencies.

In a landscape where culpability is diffused, accountability becomes an elusive specter. The need for a genuine commission is paramount for three distinct reasons:

Firstly, the unprecedented reliance on mail-in voting and the adoption of novel electoral systems necessitates a comprehensive review of their efficacy, down to the minutiae of precincts and localities.

Secondly, the pervasive perception of electoral malfeasance among a significant portion of the electorate threatens the foundational tenets of democracy. While I may not subscribe to such beliefs, the integrity of our electoral process hinges upon public confidence.

A substantial segment of the electorate remains plagued by doubts regarding the veracity of their votes, exacerbated by the dismissal of legal challenges without due consideration. Allegations of impropriety must be either substantiated or debunked in the interest of national unity.

Lastly, notwithstanding the absence of systemic fraud, the prevalence of administrative lapses, uncounted votes, and discrepancies in voting protocols necessitate redress. Billions have been expended in the pursuit of electoral integrity, yet past commissions have failed to realize these fundamental objectives.

The establishment of a genuine commission is imperative, albeit a protracted endeavor. Its efficacy hinges upon unfettered transparency, encompassing public hearings and the public dissemination of evidentiary material prior to the issuance of any definitive report. This approach ensures robust public scrutiny and engagement throughout the review process.

Congress, meanwhile, must revisit and revise the Electoral Count Act, a legislative misstep born from the chaos of the Hayes-Tilden election. Its constitutional validity has long been questioned, with critics contending that Congress’s role in certifying electoral votes is largely ceremonial. Courts may recognize Congress’s substantive role in adjudicating electoral disputes, yet the onus of validation should primarily rest with state courts in instances of electoral contention.

The crux of the matter lies in Congress’s capacity to appoint an impartial federal commission devoid of partisan influence. As echoed by Ohio Senator Allen Granberry Thurman in 1877, any legislative action must eschew partisan favoritism to uphold the sanctity of democracy. The stakes are too high to countenance anything less than an unwavering commitment to impartiality.

Let us, therefore, forge ahead with the establishment of a commission, unwavering in our pursuit of truth and accountability, lest the specter of partisanship overshadow the imperatives of justice and transparency.