Bob Bauer, of Presidential Commission on Election Administration, Skeptical of Trump Call for Voter Fraud Investigation

Must-read:

The second of these interests is his own reelection. Until we learn otherwise, Mr. Trump will be a candidate for re-election in 2020. Now, as president, he intends to order up some investigation with implications for this candidacy. Critical commentators have touched on this concern to some degree, warning that this investigation might be intended to feed into the broader GOP initiative on voter ID and other restrictions on the franchise. The investigation would serve to spur proposals for further additional restrictions that, while unwarranted as policy but designed to burden voters, could discourage or impede voting primarily in communities with high Democratic support. This is a possible, perhaps even a likely, outcome, and it both deeply objectionable and sure to spark a new round of voting rights litigation. But the context in which the President has raised the issue is not his party’s programmatic attention to voter fraud, but his election, the 2016 election, and his conviction that it cost him millions of votes….

Rick Hasen lays out the requirements for a new Commission that would look fairly and therefore credibly into this claim of fraud. He is highly skeptical that Mr. Trump would establish a Commission that met these standards. But he does not entirely write off the possibility that with appropriate bipartisan leadership and expert staffing, and with a mandate to examine both illegal voting and vote suppression produced by unjustified “anti-fraud” measures, “this call for a major investigation, if done fairly, could finally put the issue to bed.”  But the problem with any inquiry set up by this President is the source –a candidate for office, with clear political interests and a repeatedly stated, unshakeable belief in what the conclusion should be. It is difficult to see who, with the credibility and expertise needed for this enterprise, would–or should–agree to participate under these conditions.

A popular explanation, tending to minimize the ethical issue, is that this is all a matter of presidential personality or psychology. But the ethical issue becomes unavoidable if the original impulse, if that is what it was, is now replaced by an investigation; if the tweet now turns into an Executive Order or other official directive.

The recurrent emphasis on the President’s volatility, while a reasonable enough concern, allows attention drift too far from a core problem: abuse of official position. Presidents are skilled politicians who keep close watch on their political well-being as they formulate policy and make decisions, but there are limits, and crucial are those constraints having to do with the misuse of official authority to improve their electoral prospects.

The President is entitled, of course, to “believe what he believes.” He is free to make the case for an inquiry into the voting fraud. But once he has made it, he should stand aside and leave the choice of proceeding to others, to experts and election officials, outside his Administration. The President has been heard on this subject. The best course for him now is the functional equivalent of recusal.

Share this: