Voters – Let’s Deny the Deniers
Election Deniers Are On the November Ballot. It’s Time to Name Names.
Whether you vote by mail, by drop box, or in person, save this article to use as a reference for this year’s midterm elections. As we previously discussed, an increasing number of election deniers – politicians who are running for public office who cast doubt on the legitimate outcome of the 2020 Presidential election – are being nominated to positions of authority.
Their names will appear on the ballots in multiple states and – if elected – could overturn the will of the people if there is an outcome they do not like. Deniers elected in pivotal swing states in 2022 have the potential to throw the 2024 Presidential election into chaos.
Is this author being alarmist? Surely, some would say, we have robust institutions that would prevent this kind of thing from happening. Really? Institutions are nothing more than big buildings with people in them. And it’s the kind of people inside them that matters now.
It's time to name names.
Let’s begin with the office of Secretary of State. (Future posts will list election deniers running for state Attorney General and Governor.) According to States United Democracy Center:
The Secretary of State, in most states, serves as the Chief Elections Officer and is responsible for voter registration, expanding voting access administratively, maintaining voter rolls, and administering elections. Secretaries of State also have various other responsibilities based on their state, including administering business services and licensing, regulating securities and charities, and issuing professional licenses; in some states, they are second in succession to the Governor.
The Secretary of State is directly elected in 35 states and Washington, D.C. The Secretary is elected by the state Legislature in three (3) states and appointed by the governor in nine (9) states. Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah do not have Secretaries of State.
A Secretary of State candidate who has publicly denied the previous election’s legitimacy could influence a state’s election machinery in a number of ways, according to The Washington Post. S/he could:
Make it harder to vote – this state official could change the procedures that determine how a state’s election is to be run, such as rules governing ballot drop boxes, the acceptance of mail-in ballots, or the verification of voters’ signatures.
Perform endless audits – this state official could further erase confidence in an election’s integrity by endlessly ordering recounts and audits.
Refuse to sign off on election results – in a Presidential election, this person could refuse to sign the official certificate that identifies the candidate who won a state’s electoral votes.
Sow distrust in the results – a person in this office could publicly question the legitimacy of election results, thereby eroding the public’s confidence in the system.
Here is the list of election deniers on the ballot for Secretary of State, listed by state. (Click here for the methodology and the evidence.)
Alabama – Wes Allen
Arizona – Mark Finchem
Connecticut – Dominic Rapini
Indiana – Diego Morales
Massachusetts – Rayla Campbell
Michigan – Kristina Karamo
Minnesota – Kim Crockett
Nevada – Jim Marchant
New Mexico – Audrey Trujillo
North Dakota – Charles Tuttle
Vermont – H. Brooke Paige
Wyoming – Chuck Gray
Each of these Secretary of State nominees has in some way embraced the Big Lie that the 2020 election was “stolen.” The irony is that many of these nominees cast themselves as “election defenders” or rail against “voter fraud.”
They wrap themselves in the rhetoric of saving the Republic, sustaining their base’s perpetual state of agitation and rage over a system that is “rigged” against their candidate. As Tom Nichols in The Atlantic reminds us about the subset of citizens who remain perpetually angry and have bought into extremism:
People issuing such demands [that the election must be overturned] are not interested in discussion or compromise; indeed, they’d be disappointed if they got what they wanted, because their anger sustains them and gives meaning to their lives. When faced with such movements and their demands, there is only one response: Contain and defeat.
Contain and defeat. Deny the deniers. Vote.