Democrats Used ALTERNATE ELECTORS from Hawaii in 1960

Newly released documents reveal a Democrat strategy from the 1960 election in Nixon vs. Kennedy that show the “alternate elector” strategy was first employed by democrat electors who were challenging a contested election. Those who signed the document were never charged with crimes or investigated. The 2020 electors used language nearly identical to the 1960s democrat strategy, but because they are now victims of political lawfare, are now being prosecuted.

In this report:

The debate over alternate or “false” electors has resurfaced in political conversations, with charges of crimes, arrests, and house raids making headlines. Some allege that this practice was originally employed by Democrats, citing a historical precedent set during the 1960 Presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. This blog post aims to explore this claim, discuss its nuances, and examine whether it establishes a relevant precedent for actions taken in the 2020 election.

The 1960 Case: Kennedy vs. Nixon

In the 1960 election, Richard Nixon, who was Vice President at the time, faced off against John F. Kennedy. The election results showed Kennedy as the clear winner, but the state of Hawaii remained in limbo. Initial results indicated that Nixon had won the state by a narrow margin of just 140 votes. These results were even certified by Hawaii’s Governor. However, a recount was in progress at the time presidential electors were set to cast their ballots.

What happened next? Nixon’s electors in Hawaii cast their votes in an official ceremony. Simultaneously, Kennedy’s three elector nominees in Hawaii signed their own Electoral College certificates, which were then sent to Washington, D.C., as if Kennedy had won Hawaii. These certificates declared Kennedy and his running mate, Lyndon B. Johnson, as the winners in Hawaii, despite the initial certification in favor of Nixon.

The Scrutiny of Trump Electors

Fast forward to 2020, where some Trump supporters have pointed to this 1960 incident as a precedent for their own actions. In 2020, alternate slates of electors were sent in from several states where Joe Biden was declared the winner but where the Trump campaign had ongoing legal challenges. These alternate electors were sometimes referred to as “false electors,” and their actions have been scrutinized by law enforcement agencies and political opponents alike.

Are the Two Cases Comparable?

The crux of the argument rests on whether the 1960 Kennedy electors offer a valid precedent for the 2020 Trump electors. However, there are some critical distinctions:

Recount and State Certification: In the 1960 case, a recount eventually flipped Hawaii’s results, and Kennedy was declared the winner. A new certificate was sent to Washington, certified by Hawaii’s Governor, and this certificate superseded the initial one.
Legal Precedent: A State Court and the sitting governor of Hawaii both weighed in favor of Kennedy’s electors. This gave legal credence to their claims, whereas the 2020 alternate electors did not have similar legal support.

No Criminal Charges: In 1960, no criminal charges were filed against the Kennedy electors, partly because their actions were later vindicated by the recount and court judgment.

Acknowledgement of All Slates: Richard Nixon acknowledged all three slates of electors, including the uncertified Democratic slate, and decided in favor of the one that he believed most accurately reflected the voters’ will.

Double Standard or Different Context?

Some claim that a double standard exists—pointing out that while “false” electors supporting Trump face legal scrutiny, the Kennedy electors of 1960 faced no such consequences. However, others argue that the two cases exist in very different legal and political contexts. The legal mechanisms that apply today may not align neatly with those in play over six decades ago.

Conclusions

While it’s tempting to point to the 1960 case as a “gotcha” moment, the complexities of each election cycle, including differing state laws, legal judgments, and political contexts, make it difficult to draw a direct parallel. The issue isn’t as black and white as some would like to portray. If we want to maintain the integrity of our electoral system, it is crucial to understand these nuances instead of painting all instances with the same broad brush.

What remains true, however, is that the debate over alternate electors will likely continue to be a flashpoint in discussions about election integrity and the law. Whether or not you believe that a double standard exists, this issue undoubtedly reveals the complexities and potential pitfalls of our electoral system.