Not all Democrats have resigned themselves to President-elect Donald Trump taking office as Inauguration Day approaches.
A pair of high-profile lawyers who also happen to be supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris floated the idea of House and Senate Democrats blocking Mr. Trump from being sworn in using the 1887 Electoral Count Act.
“Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now,” the Thursday headline of an op-ed in The Hill said.
The act requires 20% of the members of each chamber to sign a petition objecting to the electoral vote, according to the authors, New York lawyer Evan A. Davis and Chicago investment banker David M. Schulte.
“If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes,” they said. “If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.”
What would be the basis of the objection?
The authors argued that any electoral votes cast for Mr. Trump are invalid under the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause, which disqualifies any “oath-breaking insurrectionist” from serving as president.
They referred to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot depicted by Democrats as an insurrection.
“Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed,” said the article. “No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
Does that mean Congress should engage in insurrection to block an insurrectionist?
The authors clearly don’t see it that way, but right-tilting skeptics declared that the plan sounded “insurrection-y.”
“Weird, had Trump done this after the 2016 election, he would have been charged with insurrection,” said the @Webmeister account on social media.
The conservative media outlet Twitchy Team warned: “Sounds PRETTY Insurrection-y: The Hill Tries Making Case to STOP TRUMP from Taking Office and OH HELL NO.”
Derek Muller, Notre Dame Law School professor, disputed the authors’ claim that the 2021 House impeachment of Mr. Trump represents a basis for disqualification, given that there was no conviction and “disqualification is literally one of a ’judgment’ of impeachment that the Senate rejected.”
“This is a good occasional reminder that The Hill will publish literally anything,” Mr. Muller said in an analysis of the article on social media.
The op-ed’s authors identified themselves as clerks of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and Ivy League law school grads who edited their respective law reviews, but neither are neutral political observers.
Both are longtime Democratic donors who contributed to the Harris Victory Fund and Harris for President in the 2024 election, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Mr. Schulte, the managing partner of Chilmark Partners, is a friend of the Clintons and Obamas who rented his oceanfront Martha’s Vineyard home to then-President Barack Obama in 2013, according to a 2013 article in Chicago Magazine.
Their proposed strategy invited comparisons to one broached earlier this year by Rep. Jamie Raskin, Maryland Democrat.
Mr. Raskin drew headlines in February for telling an audience at a bookstore event that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Insurrection Clause, “could not be clearer what it’s stating.”
“They want to kick it to Congress, so it’s going to be up to us on Jan. 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified, and then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions,” Mr. Raskin said.
The House and Senate gather on Jan. 6 following each presidential election for the counting and certification of the electoral votes.
Mr. Trump is then scheduled to be sworn in as president for his second nonconsecutive term on Jan. 20.
• Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.