The Coming Post-Election Chaos: A Storm Warning of Things to Come If the Vote Is as Close as Expected

The Coming Post-Election Chaos:
A Storm Warning of Things to Come If the Vote Is as Close as Expected

Friday, Oct. 22, 2004

This next presidential election, on November 2, may be followed by
post-election chaos unlike any we've ever known

Look at the swirling, ugly currents currently at work in this
conspicuously close race. There is Republicans' history of going
negative to win elections. There is Karl Rove's disposition to
challenge close elections in post-election brawls. And there is
Democrats' (and others) new unwillingness to roll over, as was done in
2000. Finally, look at the fact that a half-dozen lawsuits are in the
works in the key states and more are being developed.

This is a climate for trouble. A storm warning is appropriate. In the
end, attorneys and legal strategy could prove as important, if not more
so, to the outcome of this election as the traditional political
strategists and strategy.

Let's go over each factor that spells trouble - and see how they may
combine.


A GOP Disposition For Nasty Campaigns

Before this year's race, the 1988 presidential race between George H.
W. Bush and Michael Dukakis was well-known as the most foul of modern
campaigns. The Bush campaign used Willie Horton to smear their way to
the White House - with Lee Atwater playing the hardest of hardball.

Horton was a convicted murderer. Massachusetts Governor Dukakis gave
him a prison furlough. Once furloughed, Horton held a white Maryland
couple hostage for twelve hours, raping the woman and stabbing the man.
By using these facts - and Horton's mug shot - in a heavy-handed
negative advertisement, Atwater turned the election for Bush. As a
Southerner, especially, he must have understood how the ad catered to
racial prejudice.

In the 2000 Republican primary race, George W. Bush used similar
tactics against Senator John McCain. That's no surprise: Bush's
political strategist Karl Rove, and Bush himself, were protégées' and
admirers of Lee Atwater. To my knowledge, all of Rove's campaigns have
accentuated the negative - often dwelling exclusively on nasty attacks.
This one is no exception.

Thus, if Bush narrowly prevails on Election Day, the Democrats are
likely to be in a less than congenial mood - and especially likely to
go to court. And there will doubtless be fodder for litigation, given
the GOP's propensity to try to disqualify votes and voters.


The GOP's Campaign Tactic Of Attempting to Disqualify Votes And Voters

In 1986, former Assistant United States Attorney James Brosnahan (today
a noted San Francisco trial attorney) testified - based on an
investigation the Justice Department had dispatched him to conduct -
that as a young Phoenix attorney, Justice William Rehnquist had been
part of conservative Republicans' 1962 efforts to disqualify black and
Hispanic voters who showed up to vote. Brosnahan's testimony was
supported by no less than fourteen additional witnesses. Rehnquist
nevertheless became Chief Justice - thanks to the continued support of
conservative Republicans.

During the 1964 Goldwater versus Johnson race, when I first heard of
such tactics, I was appalled to hear friends bragging about excluding
Johnson supporters from voting. Later, when I found myself working at
the Department of Justice for Richard Kleindienst, we discussed such
tactics.

Kleindienst served as director of field operations for Goldwater in
1964, and for Nixon in 1968. Remarkably, Kleindienst confided that he
had engaged in fewer dubious tactics in 1968 than in 1964. If such
efforts were mounted by the Nixon campaign in 1972, when I had a good
overview of what was going on, I am not aware of it.

Even Nixon had his limits, and he was more interested in wooing white
Southerners into the Republican ranks. He did so, successfully, when
such Southern Democratic stalwarts and pillars of bigotry and racism as
Senators Strom Thrumond and Jesse Helms joined the GOP. They renewed
the party's effort to disqualify voters who, and votes that, did not
see the world as Republicans did. The racism became less blatant. After
all, it had become a crime -- which called for new tactics. Yet the
revised stratagems were (and remain) anything but subtle.

The 2000 presidential race in Florida is an excellent example.
Reportedly, Bush's Florida victory came courtesy of 537 votes out of
some six million. It's plain from this slim margin that the GOP's voter
and vote disqualifying tactics cost Vice President Al Gore the
presidency. (In the October 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, an excellent
article entitled "The Path To Florida" explains how the Republicans
nullified and disqualified literally hundreds of thousands of Florida
votes.)

This lesson has not been lost on the Democrats - who are likely to
refrain from conceding if they are losing in 2004 until all of the
dubious disqualifications in closely-won swing states are sorted out.


Rove's Refusal To Accept Defeat: The Knee-jerk Response of Suing

And it won't only be the Democrats heading to court. Indeed, in Florida
in 2000, it was Bush who sued first -- while later falsely accusing
Gore of starting the litigation.

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't merely the closeness of the
tallying in what appeared to be unique circumstances in Florida that
spawned litigation. To the contrary, suing is a standard operating
procedure for Karl Rove when he is losing (or has lost) a race.

A recent profile of Karl Rove in the November 2004 Atlantic Monthly,
entitled "Karl Rove In A Corner," examines how Rove operates in a close
race. While Rove has had only a few, his tactics are never pretty.

The article describes "Rove's power, when challenged, to draw on an
animal ferocity that far exceeds the chest-thumping bravado common to
professional political operatives" - and notes that "Rove's fiercest
tendencies have been elided in national media coverage."

Consider Rove's role in a 1994 judicial campaign for the Alabama
Supreme Court. Election returns showed his candidate had lost by 304
votes. But Rove went to court - not only suing to overturn the
election, but at the same time, further campaigning to garner support
for these efforts.

These maneuvers went on and on and on. Rove's candidate and his
opponent both appeared for Inauguration Day ceremonies, although
neither was seated. Rove moved the matter from state to federal courts.
And he appealed whenever he could - all the way up to the U. S. Supreme
Court, which stayed the case almost a year after the election. In the
end, Rove's man won -- purportedly by 262 votes.

Doubtless, Rove was similarly prepared to take Bush's 2000 lawsuits as
far as necessary. Had the U.S. Supreme Court bumped the case back to
the Florida Supreme Court, and allowed the recount to conclude,
doubtless Rove would have again challenged the recount - all the way
back up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Make no mistake: If Bush loses, and it is very close, Rove will want
to litigate as long as possible, going to the U.S. Supreme Court
(again) if possible.


Still Too Close To Call: The Conspicuous Closeness Of The 2004 Race

So far, no incumbent modern president has won or lost in a squeaker.
Even races that looked close in the polls were subject to a last-minute
surge in one direction. But we are now ten days away from the 2004
election, with no surge yet in evidence.

A late "October Surprise" might change that. Osama's arrest would
likely cause a surge for Bush. New and unequivocally damning evidence
about the justification for the Iraq war could create a surge for
Kerry. (Suppose, for instance, it became incontrovertible that, for
instance, Bush and Cheney knew that Saddam not only did not have WMD
but also had terminal cancer.)

Still, without such a surprise, this race may be an historical photo
finish. The electorate is deeply divided. Most of the undecided are now
decided. So a true surge for either candidate is unlikely.

There is one wild card: Both sides - as well as many independent
groups -- have recently registered hundreds of thousands of new voters.
Historically, newly registered voters have often not voted in the first
election for which they were eligible. But that could change; it's
impossible to know.

Exactly how close will the race be? Of course, polls are an imperfect
measure, and they tend to be less reliable the closer it is to Election
Day. Still, as I write, and based on the consensus of polls I believe
(historically) to be the most reliable, the situation appears to be
this:

There are a total of 538 electoral votes. A simple majority of 270
wins. (If the candidates tie at 269, the tie is broken by the House of
Representatives.)

President Bush seems to have a lock on 176 electoral votes from twenty
states: AL-9, AK-3, AZ-10, GA-15, ID-4, IN-10, KS-6, KY-8, LA-9, MS-6,
MT-3, NE-5, ND-3, OK-7, SC-3, TN-11, TX-34, UT-5, VA-13 and WY-3.
Senator Kerry seems to have a lock on 153 electoral votes in ten states
and the District of Columbia: CA-55, CT-7, DE-3, HI-4, IL-21, MD-10,
MA-12, NY-31, RI-4, VT-3 and DC-3.

Six states with 51 electoral votes tilt toward Bush: AR-6, CO-9,
MO-11, NV-5, NC-15 and WV-5. But six states with 63 electoral votes
lean toward Kerry: ME-3 (note that Maine apportions its four electoral
votes, and one vote still appears to be up for grabs), MI-17, MN-10,
NJ-15, OR-7 and WA-11.

Suppose all the tilting states indeed go in the direction in which they
are tilting. That gives Bush/Cheney 227 electoral votes, and
Kerry/Edwards 216 votes.

There are still eight true swing states. In total, they have 95
electoral votes: IA-7, FL-27, ME-1, NH-4, NM-5, OH-20, PA-21, and
WI-10.

It is in these states that election 2004 will ultimately be resolved -
either in the voting booths, or in the courts. And note that none of
these states, alone - even Florida, with its 27 votes - will give
either candidate a win.

That means we could see simultaneous litigation in a number of states
- chosen either because the polling was especially close, or because
there are significant numbers of vulnerable votes to try to disqualify.
It will be recalled that the possibility for multi-state litigation
arose in 2000, before Florida became the focus; it could easily become
a reality in 2004.


An Election For Attorneys: Neither Side Will Budge If Litigation Begins

When I discussed this situation with several attorneys on both sides, I
realized none are likely to back down. The Democrats intend to play
hardball to win this time; the Republicans feel that Democrats aren't
adhering to the letter of the law in registration efforts - and want to
hold them to it.

It is impossible to get a complete count, but it appears that at least
10,000 - and possibly as many as 150,000 -- attorneys, paralegals and
law students will be working as observers, or handling election
problems, on November 2-- just in the swing states. They have been
trained in the relevant state's election laws, and they will focus on
the casting and counting of votes.

With so many legal minds looking for problems and such combative
attitudes on both sides, litigation seems inevitable - especially if
the November 2 tally is close. And if litigation starts, it won't stop
soon: A game of litigation chicken -- testing who will fold first -
seems likely, with each party bent on holding out.


The Nightmare Scenario: An Election Up in the Air For Months

It may be days or weeks, if not months, before we know the final
results of this presidential election. And given the Republican control
of the government, if Karl Rove is on the losing side, it could be
years: He will take every issue (if he is losing) to its ultimate
appeal in every state he can.

The cost of such litigation will be great - with the capital of
citizens' trust in their government, and its election processes,
sinking along with the nation's (if not the world's) financial markets,
which loathe uncertainty. After Bush v. Gore, is there any doubt how
the high Court would resolve another round? This time, though, the
Court, too, will pay more dearly. With persuasive power as its only
source of authority, the Court's power will diminish as the American
people's cynicism skyrockets.

It does not seem to trouble either Rove or Bush that they are moving
us toward a Twenty-first Century civil war -- and that, once again,
Southern conservatism is at its core. Only a miracle, it strikes me,
can prevent this election from descending into post-election chaos. But
given the alternatives, a miracle is what I am hoping for.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the
president.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041022.html/

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,....
full disclaimer http://www.duckdaotsu.org/fairuse.html
http://lists.igc.org/mailman/listinfo/duckdaotsu
a proud mediachannel.org affiliate
International Progressive Publications Network
duck feed at http://duckdaotsu.blogspot.com/atom.xml