[EL] Accepting the results of the election

[Larry Levine]

And today Trump has rewritten the question he was asked last night. He has been say he was asked if he would concede on election night. That isn’t even close to what Chris Wallace asked. So, once again we are faced with a kings ex from Trump. 

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 2:02 PM
To: Jon Sherman <jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com>
Cc: SVladeck at law.utexas.edu; law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci. edu <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election

 

 

I see Trump as coming from a basic view point that the *political* burden of proof is on the elections administrators, even if the legal burden of proof in a hypothetical election contest is allocated to the plaintiff challenger. But in either case, Trump is entirely within his rights to "wait and see". On this note, Joe Scarborough makes some sense. See https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/20/joe-scarborough-lashes-out-media-defends-trumps-refusal-say-whether-hed-accept-election-results/213978 

 

But it seems the *repetition* of this position and the use of the term "rigging" also concern people because there appears to be a pattern of possibly  prepping people for post-election unrest. But as Prof. SCHULTZ s article points out, many aspects of election law are "rigged" after being fought over tooth and nail, knowing full well the likely consequences to election results, and many of these riggings on balance benefit Republicans. BUT "rigged" is in play.... 

 

What Trump is within his rights to say once he is within his rights to repeat again and again. The objection to the word "rigging" is overwrought under the the actual facts since much in elections is openly "rigged". 

 

The real crux for many is the fear of election related violence and the lack of a peaceful transition of power. But such concern indicts both campaigns. Many would highly prefer choice cuss words an insult to being called an irredeemable racist sexist, homophobic xenophobic deplorable bigot. Those are fighting words in bars around here, and I imagine many other places too. 

 

Clearly adults in the room are needed, but if you're clearly taking a side in a political bar fight,  you're not an adult in the room at the moment. 

 

Paul Lehto, J.D. 

 



-- 

Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 2952
Watford City, ND 58854
lehto.paul at gmail.com <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com> 
906-204-4965 (cell)






 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/1041eb81/attachment.html>