It is very frustrating to continue to read constant claims such as this: “Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people.” For the 1000th time, I never said they should! I have said, in the past and in the present, and have written, that the state legislatures should defend the election laws they legitimately passed, and that the voting and vote counts should be based on those standing statutes, not the unconstitutional changes instituted by other bodies. Is reading not fundamental in liberal land? Actually, they prefer to argue against positions never stated.
So, nice try, but we’ve seen all this pabulum before. It’s not about disenfranchising anyone. It’s about following the Constitution and the subsequent state election statutes as adopted by the state legislatures. It’s also about the Democrat Party undermining state election laws, sometimes within months of an election, by litigating before friendly state courts (such as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court) or executive orders and administrative actions by Democrat governors and their administrations, in contravention of existing statutory law. These are the schemes that disenfranchise lawful and legitimate voters. None of this would be occurring but for the actions and tactics of the Democrat Party, which acts to advantage itself by undoing Article II. This is a constitutional republic, after all. There are rules. And the framers could not have been clearer. The Democrat Party activity seems akin to the Cloward and Pivens tactic, as described by them in 1966, to flood the zone, create chaos, declare victory, and blame and accuse your opponent of misbehavior — as is done in this rather superficial Lawfare article. Lawfare is notoriously liberal. And, of course, if you argue that the Constitution should be followed, then you oppose due process and seek to disenfranchise voters, etc. Then the actual history of the constitutional provision, which was necessary because the Constitution would not have been adopted let alone ratified by the states if the state legislatures were not in charge of the election process within their borders, is cherry-picked by this author, which is not surprising. But why bother with the Constitution at all, inasmuch as the basic argument by the author is that all these changes must be upheld because the ends justifies the means and, besides, the actual language needs to be abandoned or interpreted to apply to modern times (i.e., empower the Democrat Party) as determined by, well, state courts, governors, bureaucrats, etc., who are apparently free to overrule the one governing body mentioned specifically in the clause — the state legislatures. The irony is lost on the author, who references the due process clause in defense of eliminating a very important section of the Constitution.