![](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/391/2020/11/Joe-Biden-and-Kamala-Harris-Article-202011101051.jpg)
A Sore Loss Does Not Justify Undermining the Electoral Process
Counting every vote is a bedrock principle of democracy. No one, not the president and not any of his attorneys, has any business undermining the voting process.
November 10, 2020 at 10:55 AM
4 minute read
As of this writing, former Vice President Joe Biden has taken the lead in Georgia and Pennsylvania and has been declared the winner, while President Trump has whittled away at Biden's lead in Arizona. After a tumultuous couple of days needed to count 100 million paper absentee ballots in addition to Election Day votes, it appears that when all the votes are tallied, President Trump will have lost the election, and Joe Biden will be the next president of the United States
Losing hurts. And in a public arena, such as a national election, losing must sting all the more. But at the end of the day, it is the duty of the candidates to accept the choice of the voters, however difficult. That choice is the most essential principle of democracy, and upon that principle rests the secure knowledge and confidence that the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Candidates, winners and losers alike, must respect and honor the electoral process in every election.
But when faced with the possibility that he legitimately may have been voted out, President Trump held a grievance-filled press conference on Thursday claiming that "they" were trying to "steal the election from us." Doubling down on his early Wednesday morning speech alleging a "fraud on the American people" and urging vote counting to stop on election night while he was still ahead, the President of the United States accused pretty much everyone, including pollsters, the media and Democrats who are somehow running the "voting apparatus" in (historically red) states, of election interference, voter suppression, fraud and corruption. He insinuated that the mail-in ballots that he had urged his supporters not to cast, which have overwhelmingly come in from Democrats, were manufactured. He called into question the diligent work being done by election officials, suggesting that they had rigged the election in Biden's favor, and challenged the integrity of the election itself. It was a shameful attempt at undermining the election process and did absolutely nothing to unite the country or respect the will of the people.
At this, we really need to say enough. Surely, irrespective of our political differences, we can all agree on a few fundamental things. Counting every vote is a bedrock principle of democracy. No one, not the president and not any of his attorneys, has any business undermining the voting process. If there is a legitimate cause of action that can be supported by evidence, then by all means bring it, but if not, don't criticize the electoral process as corrupt and fraudulent when you're losing. No one should be suggesting that Republican legislatures should seat electors that cast votes for the president rather than their state's winner. This undermining of the electoral process serves no purpose other than to further polarize Americans and attempt to delegitimize the next president, whether it's Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Enough is enough.
We do not publish this editorial lightly, and we are mindful that some may see it as partisan. We do not view this as a matter of taking sides against one candidate or another. The inflammatory language employed by the president seeks to undermine the integrity of the election and cast doubt on its results. We cannot remain silent lest our silence provide tacit approval, and we speak now only because we are compelled to, as lawyers who stand for the rule of law, because the people have a right to be confident in the result of the election. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, no one, not even the president, should be undermining that.
It's time for the country to unite. Let's move forward together into the next stage of American history.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/391/2024/10/Paul-Corey-767x633.jpg)
ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
![Winning a Custody Appeal Based on Abuse of Discretion Isn't Easy Winning a Custody Appeal Based on Abuse of Discretion Isn't Easy](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/391/2023/01/Elisa-Reiter-and-Daniel-Pollack-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250