Amid shameful behavior by President Trump and his supporters in trying to subvert duly certified election results and intimidate lawmakers in protest of phantom claims of fraud, South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott has the far more constructive approach.
Scott is introducing legislation to create a bipartisan, 18-member “Election Integrity Commission” to “study the merits and administration of the November 2020 election and make recommendations to State legislatures to improve the security, integrity, and administration of federal elections.” Crucially, this commission would operate apart from the current dispute about the recently concluded presidential race. It would thus be free of immediate political pressures and outlandish demands to overturn election results.
This proposal is thus completely unlike that of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, which would have created a 10-day commission in hopes of delaying or blocking Joe Biden’s timely inauguration. Instead, Scott’s plan would provide time and a broader, more legitimate mandate for a commission that looks forward productively.
Specifically, the commission would consist of nine members appointed by Republican congressional leaders and nine appointed by Democratic counterparts. They would do comprehensive assessments of the effects of COVID-19 on the election and the electoral measures adopted in response, specifically including the efficacy or problems caused by the more widespread use of mail-in and early voting, and “practices that would have allowed improper or fraudulent voter registration or votes.”
Scott would require the commission to submit two reports, one with precinct-level reports of any voter fraud or improprieties and another recommending “best practices that each level of local and state government should adopt” to ensure honest, fair elections and to deal with elections during national emergencies.
This is thoughtful, constructive, and potentially even statesmanlike.
It also is necessary. Tens of millions of people believe, entirely falsely, that enough election improprieties occurred in enough states that Trump was deprived of a reelection he supposedly earned from legitimate voters. Their faith in the system must be restored. More importantly, while proof that Trump actually won is nonexistent, the reality is that fraud and improprieties did occur on a large enough scale to cause concern. Judges and election officials changed voting rules on the fly, sometimes without any legitimate power. Election observers in some places were indeed denied proper access to the proceedings. Votes were cast in the names of dead people, and other ineligible people did vote. And in the confusion, surely some significant human error also occurred.
On the other hand, a thorough analysis will likely show that far more went right with these elections than went wrong. A sober, bipartisan appraisal will likely reassure every reasonable person that the system basically works, even though improvements can and should be made. The people of the United States must again feel faith in their democratic institutions, without anyone feeling disenfranchised. That restoration of faith will help deter dangerous fiascos of the sort that occurred when thuggish insurrections stormed the U.S. Capitol.
It should be noted that just 16 years ago, another national commission examined some of the same topics, but its findings were too little heeded. That commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III, recommended that states create a “uniform system of voter identification” that includes a photo, and it said states “need to do more to prevent voter registration and absentee ballot fraud.” It said that states “should establish uniform procedures for the verification and counting of provisional ballots.” Against the current leftist trend, it said states should “obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters.”
The commission also recommended an increase in Department of Justice staff numbers “to investigate and prosecute election-related fraud.” It said the practice of absentee vote-harvesting by political operatives should be prohibited. And, importantly, it expressed strong reservations about widespread mail-in voting, because “citizens voting at home may come under pressure to vote for certain candidates, and it increases the risk of fraud. … Absentee voting in [numerous] states has been one of the major sources of fraud.”
Likewise, even in-person early voting is problematic because “it allows a significant portion of voters to cast their ballots before they have all of the information that will become available to the rest of the electorate.”
A new commission may reach different conclusions. Either way, though, last year’s electoral confusion should ensure that a new commission is a high-profile exercise whose recommendations would not be so easily ignored.
Scott is on the right track. Congress should pass his bill.
