The Guardian cites court blocks and an early-voting surge
The Guardian’s Nov. 1 assessment focused on what it called Republican efforts already under way to undermine the midterm result. The editorial said courts had so far blocked executive orders that unconstitutionally claimed election powers belonging to states, but argued that intimidation, legal maneuvering and the possibility of a later stolen-election narrative remained active threats.
The warning came as polls suggested Republicans were likely to lose the House and perhaps the Senate. The Guardian said Trump, who refused to accept Americans’ democratic verdict in 2020, was now promoting claims that Democrats would steal seats through illegitimate votes. It cited psychologist Jennifer Freyd’s description of a pattern often used by perpetrators: “deny, accuse, and reverse victim and offender.” The editorial said more than one observer had noted that Trump uses the pattern politically.
The Guardian said the January 6 insurrection showed how acute the danger to American democracy had become, and that the danger was greater now. It contrasted 2020, when Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General William Barr and others refused Trump’s most outrageous demands, with what it described as the Justice Department’s current posture of accommodation.
The editorial also criticized what it called the Supreme Court’s weakening of the Voting Rights Act, which it said safeguarded against the worst forms of racial discrimination. It said states no longer require pre-approval for decisions that could tilt a race and that districts have already been redrawn.
Although courts had blocked the executive orders, The Guardian argued that the many Republican initiatives did not need to succeed every time. “A few thousand or even hundred votes in key places could have a profound effect on the outcome,” the editorial said.
The all-out push could also intimidate potential voters, The Guardian said. It said legitimate voters may fear drawing attention to undocumented relatives, whatever happens in the federal criminal investigation into alleged non-citizen voting in California and whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are actually stationed near polling places, as mooted. The Guardian said the threats and initiatives also establish a false story of a stolen election that could be taken up more powerfully after votes are cast.
Trump also repeated his call for the prosecution of Mary Peltola, the Democratic Senate candidate in Alaska. The New York Times reported that Peltola’s campaign had sought to confuse voters by recruiting another candidate with the same name as her Republican opponent, despite the campaign’s denials. The Guardian cited that report and said Alaska’s Republican governor has not committed to certify the result if Peltola wins.
The Guardian called similarly named candidates an old trick. It said the practice was not inherently illegal, but was unethical and could potentially lead to criminal charges, and it said the tactic was not grounds for contesting the Alaska race result. The editorial said the episode could be used by Republicans to claim Democrats were pursuing election fixes, while asserting that the threat to U.S. democracy came from Trump and his enablers.
The Guardian identified two checks on the wide-ranging efforts. The first was the preparation of election officials, including Republicans, to resist anti-democratic efforts despite what the editorial described as horrific abuse and death threats. It said that defense was tempered by a determined Republican push to control election boards and a growing number of election deniers in place.
The second check was a surge in early voting, which The Guardian said suggested the threat to democracy was motivating citizens to participate and ensure their ballots counted. The editorial cited recent elections elsewhere, notably Brazil, where Trump’s favored far-right candidate was rejected, saying a decisive message from voters was harder to challenge than a marginal one.
The Guardian’s conclusion was that the clearest defense would be visible public commitment to democracy: “The best defence of democracy is to show that people care about it.” It added, “The clearer the verdict, the better the prospects of upholding it.”