The 2020 Election has managed to remain on top of the 24-hour news cycle for weeks following November 3rd, extending its chaos and controversy through the minds of Americans nationwide. Among heightened partisan tensions, few people in the political community expected November 3rd to bring a clean and simple election.
After five days of anxious ballot-counting, Joe Biden was projected President Elect on Saturday morning, November 7, 2020. Undoubtedly, this was a day that made history, and so could be felt throughout the country. From the Democratic side, celebrations broke out in cities throughout the country, followed by some pro-Trump protests the following week. Vice President Elect Kamala Harris became the first female, Black, and South Asian individual to be elected Vice President. She honored this history-making role by coming out in a striking suffragette-white suit to deliver her victory speech with President Elect Biden in Delaware. Election week brought worldwide attention, as the nation tuned in to 24-hour election broadcasts, seemingly freezing time in anticipation.
Business-as-usual would mean that after the results are in, election news dies down until inauguration day.
But this is 2020.
So what has the election aftermath looked like, exactly?
More than one month out from the election, President Trump is still refusing to concede or admit his loss. The Trump campaign has been claiming unproven election fraud, filing numerous lawsuits seeking to overturn the results of the election, and holding bizarre press conferences claiming victory. Most of the Trump campaign’s lawsuits have been denied or withdrawn, leaving little room to change any election results at this point.
One of the higher profile cases included a lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton aiming to overturn election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. State attorneys from 17 other states joined the lawsuit, as well as 126 Republican members of Congress. Democracy Docket founder and Democratic attorney Marc Elias contextualized this case through the lens of President John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage, labeling this effort a Profile in Cowardice. In a striking and powerful article, Elias analyzed the undemocratic efforts of those lawmakers who supported the lawsuit as well as several judges and poll workers who stood out as profiles of courage. For Elias, the most concerning element of this effort was not Paxton, who he suggests was motivated to gain favor with President Trump in hopes of a pardon, but the 17 other state attorneys and 126 Republican members of Congress who chose to deny the will of the people because their candidate lost. Elias’s view reflected the concerns of many other citizens troubled by this undemocratic effort. The Texas lawsuit was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, marking a significant loss for the Trump campaign.
“Those of us who care about democracy can no longer afford to rely on the type of political courage Kennedy described in 1955. We must go further to display our own political courage by proposing and implementing new solutions to tackle these grave problems and not allow what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the appalling silence of the good people” to take hold without repercussions.”
On December 14, all 50 states’ electors cast their votes in the decisive Electoral College vote. Confirming Biden’s win, the electors cast 306 votes for Biden to Trump’s 232. Passing this milestone, Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results seem highly unlikely to succeed at this point, as confirmed by many election law experts.
How have these lawsuits impacted our democratic process and the overall health of our democracy?
If this election has taught us anything, it is that the democratic process is incredibly fragile. Even prior to November 3, a major question surrounding the election concerned whether Trump would accept the results of the election if he lost. Over the past nearly two months, we have received the answer: not quite. Many feared the outgoing President would attempt a coup or that the conservative Supreme Court, with three judges appointed by Trump himself, would side with him in legal challenges, perhaps unfairly. As many judges, including those on the Supreme Court, have stood up for the democratic process and dismissed unbacked lawsuits claiming widespread fraud, many of these fears have been averted. Indeed, our democratic institutions affirmed democracy this election, but there are still concerns over the precedents set by Trump and his supporters’ false claims.
Still, other concerns remain, including recent claims President Trump may attempt to instate martial law in a last-ditch effort to overturn the results. In a tweet, President Trump denied discussion of martial law. In contrast, reporting from numerous sources reveals a heated Oval Office discussion regarding the potential use of martial law, though the President’s stance on the idea was not clear.
As Uri Friedman wrote for The Atlantic, the damage from this threat to democracy will not be erased on January 20. Friedman addresses a common argument that suggests that since Trump is such a unique figure in our political culture, the threat to our democracy from undermining fair election results will also be a unique one — a one-time American fever dream which will subside after January 20. Friedman suggests this idea is not accurate, and ponders what would result if this election was as close as Bush v. Gore in 2000. The extreme partisanship and division which has increased throughout the past four years will certainly be difficult to remedy. A certain degree of trust must be restored in our political system — trust in government, trust in institutions, and trust in citizens. And this will certainly take work.
“A democracy at grave risk one day cannot be pronounced healthy the next. The precedents Trump has set, the doubts he has sown, and the claims he has made will linger. Restoring faith in the democratic process will take time and effort—and a favorable result is by no means guaranteed.”
While it is unclear what exact changes may come about as a result of this unprecedented election, some experts have suggested stricter voting laws and restrictions may arise.
Claims of widespread election fraud rested upon supposed ballot dumps and mail-in-voting fraud. Despite election security experts confirming the security of this election and numerous recounts confirming the same result, some legislators are already proposing new legislation for greater voting restrictions. This raises understandable concerns over voter suppression — a historic issue particularly in minority communities.
Looking ahead, January 6 is the date Congress is expected to certify the election results. A group of congressional Republicans is reportedly planning one final attempt to object to the election results, though they are not expected to be successful. This group of House Republicans requires at least one Senator to even prompt deliberation. No Senators have emerged at this time as potential objectors.
Each step of this year’s electoral process brings unprecedented concerns and tests the strength of our democratic institutions. It is critical to keep paying attention, keep questioning, and keep leaders accountable to protect our democracy. Let us take this election as a reminder of the need to participate and engage in our democracy in order to protect its strength.