OPINION:
Congressional Democrats are cooking up a new gimmick to ensure their party maintains its grip on the White House. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision to let voters choose the 2024 election candidates, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Maryland Democrat, is leading the charge to undo the ruling.
“The Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” Mr. Raskin told CNN hours after the high court’s Colorado ballot-access ruling. “And so, I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The new text isn’t available yet, but a previous version of the bill lets anyone sue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to ban a candidate as an “insurrectionist.” Interestingly, the ultimate sanction of being denied the right to participate in the political process would be imposed based on the weak “preponderance of the evidence” legal standard. The mere accusation would not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Considering the lack of due process afforded to Republican defendants accused of political crimes before partisan judges in the District, where 94% of the jury pool votes for Democrats, the proceedings would be a sham. Considering the bill’s supporters, that’s by design.
Mr. Swalwell of California, Mrs. Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Mr. Raskin are perhaps the perfect trio to take charge of an effort to “defend democracy.” During the joint session of Congress for the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Raskin made an unsuccessful attempt to disqualify Florida electors. These days, doubting the outcome of an election qualifies as “insurrection.”
Four years later, Mr. Raskin led the House managers in the second impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump for incitement to insurrection. Since the high court ruled the insurrection question is left to Congress, Mr. Raskin would know Congress already decided the question in 2021 when the Senate vote acquitted Mr. Trump.
As for Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, her five-year stint chairing the Democratic National Committee came crashing down after leaked emails revealed her plot to tilt the 2016 primary election in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont Independent.
Mr. Swalwell was one of the top promoters of the Russiagate hoax, which the Hillary Clinton campaign concocted to interfere with the 2016 election. It nearly succeeded, only being exposed well after the fact following the release of two special counsel reports and an inspector general report.
So, it’s fitting that these three expert practitioners of election shenanigans are the ones now seeking to contort the 14th Amendment to disenfranchise the opposition party. While their scheme cannot advance as long as Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, controls the House agenda, that could easily change in November. Democrats need only flip two House seats to retake the gavel.
If the candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket had a positive message for the country, perhaps Democrats wouldn’t have to resort to such extreme measures.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.