No, Donald Trump absolutely did not win the election. But yes, a lot of states allowed electoral practices that made ballot integrity difficult. Those practices must end, and better practices must be adopted.
Fortunately, Hans von Spakovsky at the Heritage Foundation offers nine “election reforms states can implement to prevent mistakes and voter fraud.” On a purely rational level, meaning apart from any desire to game the system in one political direction or another, each of von Spakovsky’s suggestions makes sense. (Actually, I would quibble with one of them, but that’s beside the point.)
As von Spakovsky explains them all for the Daily Signal (at this link), there’s no need for this column to recapitulate all of them. Suffice it to say that nobody in good faith can argue against recommendations to “verify the accuracy of voter registration lists,” “verify citizenship of voters,” and require full transparency of the election process for registered party observers.
One suggestion, in particular, is worth emphasis, though, because it would reassure every citizen that disputes about voting will have his or her proverbial “day in court” rather than being blocked from review by what most laymen consider a technicality. Namely, state legislatures and voters should be provided significantly augmented legal “standing” to sue to ensure that rogue officials aren’t ignoring election laws. A sizable portion of Trump voters believes, even if mistakenly, that most of Trump’s various challenges to the 2020 vote count would have won the day if they hadn’t been thrown out for lack of standing. For at least a large subset of them, the feat that the election was stolen would have been eased if the cases’ merits (or, in this case, lack thereof) had been examined by judges.
Because so many see voting as the most sacred aspect of republican government, state and federal law should err on the side of access to the courts to ensure that ballot integrity is sufficient. People must be given every reason to have full faith in our constitutional system.
Those who oppose the insistence on ballot integrity, and who wrongly assert that sensible ballot-security measures such as these are an attempt at “voter suppression,” are the ones who are acting in bad faith.
