Janine Jackson interviewed Voting Booth’s Steven Rosenfeld about vote counting for the November 6, 2020, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: It is November 5, and the New York Times front page tells me that Joe Biden sees a “path to victory.” The reason it’s just a path, I’m to understand, is that Donald Trump is still mounting “challenges” to vote counts. Trump, of course, announced in advance that, “As soon as that election is over, we’re going in with our lawyers.”
But Republicans didn’t just start going in with their lawyers. In particular, since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, they’ve used the courts to provide cover for the kind of voter suppression they feel favors them. They’ve played these cards face up for so long, it’s hard to see why anyone would credit Trump’s current legal maneuvers as anything other than what they are—frank attempts to hold on to power, no matter what.
Voting Booth (via National Memo, 11/6/20)
But here we are, and where we need a press corps that defends democratic functions unflinchingly—even, or especially, if it’s the president attacking them—what we’ve got is, along with some strong and useful reporting, a lot of normalizing inanity, like CNN‘s John Avlon telling viewers to “keep cool” and “remember that the right to vote is really the fight to vote.” Come again?
Things are changing as we speak, but joining us to talk about where we’re at is journalist Steven Rosenfeld. He’s the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He joins us now by phone from San Francisco. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Steven Rosenfeld.
Steven Rosenfeld: Thank you. Pleasure to be here.
JJ: Let’s spend a minute on the encouraging aspects of this election process. The highest turnout ever, due to massive mobilizations and ground work, and also—isn’t it due to the Covid-responsive expansion of the ways that we were able to vote?
SR: Yes, that’s really true. That’s been mostly lost in the anxiety over what the results or the outcome will be. But the country since March went through one of the biggest changes in political culture in decades, and that is tens of millions of people voting from home, or getting ballots in the mail and then finding ways to deliver them. And if you take a look at the statistics, state after state, the turnouts were just the highest it’s ever been. And that is really remarkable against this context where there was more litigation than ever, to basically complicate the process in the eight or 10 possible battleground states, so it’s really quite an achievement. And public education and voter education and voters—they deserve some credit for basically not being discouraged.
JJ: Right. As we record on November 5, Trump hasn’t let go of the strategy of what the press called “legal challenges,” which I feel is kind of fancy language for what’s happening. Without asking you to break down each individual case, what should we understand about the nature of the legal arguments being employed here?
Steven Rosenfeld: “The number of ballots that they might be able to throw out…[is] really small, and it’s not likely to jeopardize or change the outcomes in these elections.”
SR: Sure. There are two big points to make about this, without getting lost in the details. The first is that most of what Trump and the Republican Party are going after are small technicalities in the process of the way that ballots are handled or processed before they’re counted, and then counted.
And what’s really remarkable about these—I’ve been looking at this today—is that the number of ballots that they might be able to throw out— if they are even lucky to succeed, and we could say in a second why they might not be lucky—it’s really small, and it’s not likely to jeopardize or change the outcomes in these elections. It’s likely to generate a lot of doubt that could be blown up, like molehills into mountains, for their ongoing disinformation, but in terms of the litigation, it’s been incredibly small-minded and kind of sloppy. Like, it should have been filed days ago, but was only filed yesterday, or even today—today being Thursday. So in terms of the narrative of the legal arguments, there are only a few.
There’s really Bush v. Gore 2.0, which means they’re claiming that “like” ballots are not being treated in a “like” manner. Well, what does that mean? It means that counties aren’t doing the same thing, step by step, as other counties, and when you have states like Pennsylvania, where different counties have different voting technology and they have different training for poll workers and all—things don’t get done like robots. So that’s an old claim, and it’s not gotten that much traction.
The next one is a little bit more consequential, because there were four Supreme Court justices, conservatives, who said, “This is the way you can come back to us,” basically claiming that only state legislatures have the authority to regulate elections. And they say this comes out of the federal Constitution—articles one and two. “Time, place and manner,” that’s the phrase.
The problem with that is that it basically ignores everybody else. So who’s everybody else? Governors, secretaries of state, state constitutions, state supreme courts. But we will see how that might come into play.
Where it would come into play in this election is in Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Minnesota. The deadline to accept ballots that were postmarked by Tuesday, Election Day, was extended, but not by the legislature. So the question is, are those ballots going to be disqualified? In Pennsylvania, they’re being separated, they’re being handled separately, to basically put them in a pile that doesn’t jeopardize the rest.
And then the third and final area where they’re making these really nitpicky kind of claims is they’re basically claiming that, “Hey, we’re not being allowed to see the process, or watch the process,” or “Oh my gosh, we weren’t there when a ballot that came in that had coffee spilled on it was duplicated, so therefore everything else can’t be trusted.” So the big picture here—and I’m trying to write about this today, actually—is, the number of ballots that could be thrown out, if they’re successful, they’re really nibbling around the edges. So what is this mostly doing? It’s mostly building up evidence to try to discredit the results in the disinformation and social media and propaganda world.
JJ: Right, and speaking of propaganda and into media, when Donald Trump said he was going to try to stop vote counting, stop them counting votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the Washington Post said that that move threatens—the ability of people to exercise their rights? The foundations of representative government? No, it “threatens to draw out the final stages of the contest against Joe Biden.” That blase language, you know, the reporting of the shutting of polls in Black neighborhoods, of lying robocalls, of fake drop boxes, of hijacking the USPS, reporting all of that as though it were a strategy, and not an outrage, I think also goes towards ensuring more of the same.
New York Times (11/4/20)
SR: I think you’re right about that. You know we’ve become so, I don’t know, normalized? Maybe “numbed” is a better word to, you know, these kinds of tactics as if, “Well, this is just the way elections are run.” The thing that’s really crazy about this with these kinds of claims—and there was something in the paper today, the Justice Department had a memo, they might send armed guards in—and the truth is ever since the Republicans went after the Voting Rights Act and they gutted it, the Supreme Court gutted it in 2013, there is even less federal authority to even be present.
Now, these elections are state-regulated. They are not regulated by the federal government, with the exception of, you know, the amendments that say women can vote, and people aged 18 and stuff like that.
So the thing is, they have less authority than they ever had. Most of the authority they do have is to enforce civil rights laws, which this administration obviously is not interested in doing.
But these kinds of threats make it to the front page of the New York Times. That’s what’s crazy about this, because it just sucks the oxygen for creating context. What was this context be, by the way? It would basically say, for example, “These lawsuits are incredibly rinky-dink.”
Let me give you one example. A friend of mine who’s an election attorney was called to help represent the city of Detroit, because they were sued—that lawsuit was filed yesterday—to try to stop them from counting the votes. It was filed after the county had stopped already. This morning, they’re trying to go back into court to say, “Oh no we want to amend the suit, so we’re suing the county,” ’cause it’s the county that certifies, that makes the results official. So it’s that ham-handed. But in the meantime, they’re just making all this noise about how unfair, how it’s being stolen, and this, that and the other. And the press could be a little clearer on what really matters here.
JJ: Yeah. You asked recently in a piece, “If Trump doesn’t win legitimately, who will stop him from seizing power illegitimately?” And these past four years have been a lesson of—so many things—but in the kind of frailty or fungibility or the something of US institutions, you know? And I’m wondering, going forward, first of all, we have to keep an eye on this smoke screen, this kind of throw everything at it and see what sticks, and see what gets traction in the press, that the GOP are doing.
In terms of the voting process, what pieces do you think needs structural shoring up rather than just hoping that no one else tries to abuse them in the way that the Trump White House has? What should change, or what might need to change in the structure of the voting process to protect us?
SR: That’s really simple to answer. There’s a new generation of voting technology that’s basically being used everywhere across the country. It starts with paper ballots, in most places, that are marked by ink pens, but the way that votes are actually counted is they’re put through a scanner and a digital image is made of every ballot. And then that begins the process of correlating the dots you fill in with candidates and all. So what I’m trying to say here is: there is a much bigger body of data and records that could be used to very quickly get a sense of, “Are the votes being counted accurately?” And if you want to go in and fight about things that are not particularly clear, you can create—using those images—a library to find the paper and have an entirely different process, like a jury. And then people can really see and judge the evidence themselves. They don’t have to be told by any expert to “trust us.”
JJ: We’ve been speaking with Steven Rosenfeld. He’s editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth. That’s a project of the Independent Media Institute. Steven Rosenfeld, thank you so much for bringing us up to date this week on CounterSpin.
SR: Thank you so much for having me.
Rosenfeld is simply ignoring accounts by Republican election observers of gross voter fraud. Here is one example: https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/11/06/a-pro-bono-lawyer-for-trump-campaign-shares-what-he-saw-in-pennsylvania/
But let’s set that aside. According to Rosenfeld, Trump’s “nitpicky” ballot challenges are “not likely to jeopardize or change the outcomes in these elections.”
Is this the new standard? That a candidate should not challenge ballot counts when they’re not likely to alter the election results?
Maybe someone should have told Hillary Clinton that in 2016. She joined in efforts by the Green Party in 2016 to obtain recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the ground, for example, that absentee ballots were not properly counted.
The real question is why the media are insisting that Biden has been elected President when votes are still being counted and challenges to vote counts – as conceded by Rosenfeld – may alter the outcome of the election.
Is this the new standard? That a candidate should not challenge ballot counts when they’re not likely to alter the election results?
_____________________________________________________
You gotta wonder how dumb someone has to be to violently argue with their teacher to raise their grade from an F to an F+.
And it’s not just a grade on a test at stake here: it’s the well-being of the nation. If you’re gonna whine and cry and attempt to cast doubt on an election even if your best-case scenario is you lose by less votes than it appeared you did at first, then you don’t have the interests of the nation in your heart– what you have is pure naked self-interest. But that sums up Trump in a nutshell: the guy is narcissitically incapable of caring about anything other than himself.
And you cultists wanna drag down the reputation of the country and its institutions all to spare the feelings of a fat-assed conman? A guy whose ‘sposed to be the most broad-shoulder leader alpha-male ever who can’t accept the fact that he lost?
Re-fucking-diculous.
That’s where you are wrong. Trump won and the suitcases of fake ballots being recounted over & over & over again for Biden prove it. The videos don’t lie. GA definitely belongs to Trump. So does WI, PA, MI & AZ 4 MORE YEARS
You’re full of shit.
Except, John, that Rosenfeld conceded that the challenges may alter the election outcomes.
And I wonder how concerned the Democrats are about the integrity of the election process when they spent the last four years claiming without any basis that the 2016 election was invalid because Trump is a Russian puppet.
So, John, you earned an F for political analysis. (But if you study up a bit and do some extra credit work, I’ll consider raising your grade to an F-Plus! Good luck, Johnny Boy!)
Nobody claimed the election was invalid and that somehow the votes that cast weren’t counted correctly. They were pissed that the Trump campaign was awash in criminals who have since been prosecuted and was attempting to get help from Russia and Wikileaks (and repeatedly lied about that) and was benefitting from a massive Russian disinformation campaign without the Trump campaign’s participation.
But not one reputable Democrat said we need an election do-over. Obama didn’t declare martial law to stay in office against a legitimately-elected President-Elect. He welcomed Trump to the White House and began the handover of power process. Criticizing the manner and methods Trump used to get himself elected is a far, far cry from saying “I don’t trust the vote counting because I didn’t win.
Nevermind the fact that I bungled the biggest public health crisis in a century and I spent 4 years demonizing every big-city resident in the country and now I’m surprised they voted against me in record fucking numbers– I still shoulda won!”
It’s absolute fucking bullshit. The slight, slight risk that the lawsuits would do anything to affect the outcome of the election is not worth all the damage he’s doing right here, right now to the public trust in the voting process and our institutions. If you cultists and your God-Emperor cared at all about anything other than yourselves, you’d not wanna run the risk on the off-chance that any of these amateurish lawsuits works. But no, it’s the 76million and change that voted for Biden that are the problem.
From Charlie Dent, a longtime PA Republican and certainly no friend of the Democratic Party:
“Another important factor contributing to Trump’s loss was the impactful number of moderate Republican voters and independents who likely voted for Biden, or simply skipped over the presidential race, and then voted straight Republican down ballot.
Just look at the House of Representatives. No House Republican incumbent lost a seat, and, as of now, the GOP has gained eight seats — with several races yet to be projected, a handful likely in their favor. By claiming the election was stolen, Trump is attempting to delegitimize not only Biden’s impressive win, but by extension the victorious Republican congressional candidates down ballot.
Unsurprisingly, Trump couldn’t care less how his reckless words or actions impact others, which is another reason why Americans rejected him.”
Go fuck yourself.
Typical douchebag liberal signed go Fuck Yourself. Did you have anything of substance to post in your incessant pack of lies? FYI the down ballot won because of Trump. The BS that Trump lost is inane at best.
Yeah, that stuff that surrounded the “go fuck yourself”? That was substance.
“Yeah. You asked recently in a piece, “If Trump doesn’t win legitimately, who will stop him from seizing power illegitimately?” And these past four years have been a lesson of—so many things—but in the kind of frailty or fungibility or the something of US institutions, you know?”
Well when he won legitimately the “resistance” first attempted to woo faithless electors; spent four years incessantly screaming about a dubious conspiracy theory of foreign collusion; claimed he was buddies [often depicting them as homosexual lovers] with Putin despite being much harsher on Russia than Obama; and impeached him for a ridiculous reason instead of for more concrete things [which other Presidents also routinely do and future Dems will want to do, so that wasn’t an option].
So, “who will stop him from seizing power illegitimately”?
Not the Democratic Party. Not the media. They’ve exposed themselves for 4 years as so partisan that they try to stop him from legitimately having power, so obviously can’t be trusted in any way whatsoever.
The GOP has earned the right to fill the airwaves with conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden; collusion with China [perhaps Biden had some chinese prostitutes defecate on him? Just a suggestion. We’ll need to find out the Chinese term for “kompromat” though]; impeaching Biden for petty charges; and if Biden launches nukes at Beijing claim “It’s just what Xi wanted”.
When the survivors of the nuclear holocaust say “I think the death of 90% of all humans means Biden and Xi weren’t actually colluding”, the local GOP warlords will tell them “Hope the yuans are worth it” and “nice Chinese talking point. Bot.”
The entire US political system and the entire media system are illegitimate. That’s what needs to be stopped.
Massive Russian disinformation campaign? Glad to hear of your love affair with intelligence agencies, neo-conservatives and the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party.
But perhaps this might allow the truth to begin penetrating your thick skull:
https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2020/08/19/matt-taibbi-on-the-origins-of-the-russiagate-hoax/
Not one reputable Democrat said we need an election do-over? Did you even read my comment? Hillary Clinton “joined in efforts by the Green Party in 2016 to obtain recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the ground, for example, that absentee ballots were not properly counted.”
By the way, many “reputable Democrats” also urged John Kerry to investigate election irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election.
Sorry, Johnny Boy, your grade has been reduced to an F-Minus. And that’s being generous. Now, class dismissed…
Clinton conceded the election the night of, dipshit. Whatever she did after had no effect on the transfer of authority to Trump.
Take that grade and shove it up your Trump-worshipping ass. This is all a fucking scam to keep Trump in the spotlight and to get contributions pay down campaign debt. Read the fine print on the donation form: a full 60% of contributions to the “legal defense fund” are earmarked for campaign debt. If it was such a huge, fucking scandalous miscarriage of justice, you’d think they’d mark 100% for it, don’t ya?
Of course Hillary’s challenge “had no effect on the transfer of authority to Trump.” That’s because her challenge failed!
But Trump obviously has the right and the duty to ensure that all votes are counted properly. Perhaps he’s taking inspiration from Hillary’s vote count challenge. Her campaign said that it “felt an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton…it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.”
However, unlike Gore and Hillary – each of whom idiotically conceded and then subsequently “unconceded” – Trump is taking the far more prudent approach of demanding that all votes be counted (and counted properly) before a victor is determined and before the loser concedes.
Now, Johnny Boy, put on your dunce cap and go sit in the corner.
You’re still here? I thought I told you to go fuck yourself.
Trump is not demanding all votes be counted. He’s demanding the votes be counted that will get him elected and trying to stop votes from being counted that will get Biden elected. It’s delusional of you cultists to try and spin that as “benevolent leader Trump just wants to make sure everything was done properly.”
Yes, he is within his rights. However, the greater good of the nation dictates that he not exercise those rights and just accept that he lost. There’s is a slim-to-none chance his amateurish legal shenanigans will actually work. But Trump doesn’t fucking care: as far as he’s concerned, as long as his fat ass is taken care off, the rest of the GOP and the country and the world can go pound sand. All this is gonna lead to is his cultists growing more and more radicalized until one of them carries out some terrorist attack.
“Yes, he is within his rights. However, the greater good of the nation dictates that he not exercise those rights and just accept that he lost.”
lol
Yeah, that’s my position. I stand by it. If he loves and serves this country like he’s ‘sposed to and like he brags about, then he should realize that all he’s gonna end up doing is causing more harm than good. He’s got a snowball’s chance in Hell of actually throwing out the 10’s of thousands of votes over 4 states that he’d need to overturn the election results. But to keep tilting at this windmill he becomes a national and international embarrassment, he exhorts his dangerous, cultist followers to violence, and he sows needless mistrust in our institutions and processes.
Fuck you and your “lol”. I’m fucking serious. It’s better for all concerned if he just realizes and admits that he lost. If he had an history of actually telling the truth about anything or demonstrating even the slightest bit of self-awareness (“I don’t take any responsibility at all”), then maybe I might give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not a spoiled brat whining that he didn’t win. Maybe if he hadn’t been banging that “I won’t trust the election results; we’ll have to see” drum for at least 3 months prior to November, maybe I’d give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not a fat-assed conman narcissist who can’t face reality.
But he’s got nobody to blame but himself for how he’s perceived.
You’ve convinced me, Johnny Boy. Counting votes inevitably leads to terrorism!
(But you still receive an F-Minus because of your lack of fat acceptance.)
No, counting the votes is inevitably lead to Biden being the winner.
But as that happens, continually crying “election fraud” to your dipshit cultist followers who believe every utterance from his insipid mouth is fucking dangerous. When there’s no evidence, they won’t just let it go and he won’t tell them to just let it go because he’d consider that backing down. They will get violent and he’ll do nothing to stop it.
That’s one of the ways how terrorist radicalization happens: a charismatic leader plays on the victim mentality and the us-vs.-them perception and convinces them they’ve got nothing left to lose so they persuade themselves to take whatever direct action they feel comfortable taking. If Trump was some Imam saying the same kinds of things to Muslim voters, you think everybody would just stand by and say “This is fine”? Yeah… right…
The guy makes fun of everyone’s physical appearance, so his fat ass gets no slack from me.
Biden Lost!
Write in on his forehead in reverse so you can read it from your rearview mirror as he is chasing his dog from behind you. Johnny Boy.
Fuck off and go plan your coup with the face-painted kid in the animal headdress, dipshit.