The 2020 Election and Trump’s Post-Election Campaign: A Scrutiny of Events
Disclaimer: I’m anything BUT a Trump insider but…
Introduction
As we reflect on the events that unfolded following the 2020 US presidential election, it becomes clear that the aftermath of this high-stakes contest was not merely a political transition but a seismic shift in how the country views electoral integrity and the role of elected officials in ensuring fair outcomes.
The Post-Election Day Campaign
This period was marked by a sustained effort by former President Donald Trump to scrutinize the voting process and raise doubts about its legitimacy. For Trump and his supporters, the campaign was driven by a belief in the necessity of a judicial review to validate their concerns about the election results. However, the mechanisms available to realize this goal proved to be either legally infeasible or politically non-viable.
Trump’s Objective
Trump’s primary aim was to secure a judicial review of the election. This would involve a thorough examination of all ballots and voting procedures, with the intent of nullifying the results if any discrepancies or irregularities were found. However, there is no direct legal mechanism for this, and even if there were, it would not significantly advance his objective. A judicial review is not designed to overturn election results arbitrarily; rather, it is a process that requires specific and demonstrable legal violations.
The Role of Barr
One of the figures most closely identified with Trump during these efforts was William Barr, the former Attorney General. Some believed that Trump could leverage Barr’s influence or legal standing to initiate such a review. However, this is unlikely due to both the legal limits on the Attorney General's involvement post-election and the political realities of the moment.
Legal Actions and Their Impact
Despite Trump filing dozens of legal cases to challenge the election results, none were heard. This outcome has significantly impacted both sides' perspectives. Democrats viewed the failure to hear these cases as proof that they had merit and that the judicial system was working as intended. Republicans, on the other hand, saw it as evidence of a preordained and politically motivated outcome, further cementing their belief in a “fix” within the system.
Democratic Perspective
Democrats argue that the lack of hearings indicates that the legal challenges put forward by Trump and his allies are either frivolous or lacking in credible evidence. This is seen as a demonstration of the legal system's capacity to filter through and dismiss unfounded claims. It is also viewed as a testament to the democratic principles of due process and the rule of law.
Republican Perspective
Republicans, and many of Trump's supporters, have long maintained that the elections were rigged or manipulated in some way. The failure of legal challenges to be heard is interpreted as proof that the system is biased against their interests. This reinforces their belief that the electoral process is susceptible to interference and manipulation, particularly in the context of high-stakes political contests.
Conclusion
The 2020 election and its aftermath have brought into sharp relief the challenges and complexities inherent in electoral systems. While the pursuit of a judicial review by Trump and his supporters represented a genuine effort to address their concerns, the limitations of legal mechanisms and the political implications of these efforts have ensured that the outcome remains deeply contentious.
As we move forward, the events of 2020 serve as a critical lesson in the importance of transparency, accountability, and the unwavering commitment to the rule of law in the conduct of democratic elections.