To the editor:

The Constitutional requirement that voting procedure follow laws specified by each state’s legislature is not derived from some obscure law or some strained interpretation of the Constitution. It is written in that founding document. “[The President and Vice President shall] be elected as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives...” Article II, Sec.1, Cl.4.

The Texas lawsuit filed against the States of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alleged that non-legislative actors unconstitutionally abolished critical safeguards against fraud with mail-in voting. This contention is not unfounded. The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, stated as one of their conclusions that voting by mail “increases the risk of fraud.” Many other cases filed in State and Federal courts also conclude that voting by mail increases the incidence of voting fraud.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Secretary of State made decisions to change the voting procedures for the 2020 election including the extreme step of not requiring signature verification of mail-in ballots. This was done independent of any action by the state legislature.  Several U.S. Senators and representatives questioned the constitutionality of these changes and stated prior to the certification that they intended to debate the issue on Jan. 6th. The Constitution, federal law, and the rules of the Congress allow for Senators and Representatives to object to the certification of electoral votes from any state. An objection from at least one representative and one senator initiates a debate in both chambers.  

In the end the results of two states, Arizona and Pennsylvania, were debated and eight Senators and 139 Representatives voted to sustain one or both of the objections that came to a vote. Many supported those who challenged the electors and many others criticized them. The criticism rose to the level of calling for the resignation of those who voted to object. This was unwarranted because the objectors were merely calling for investigation of alleged voter fraud. The objectors wanted to investigate potential criminal acts and even if the 2020 election was not reversed, to at least initiate safeguards against election fraud in the future.

Three Kansas representatives (Ron Estes, Jacob LaTurner, and Tracey Mann) and Senator Roger Marshall were among those who voted to object. There seems to be a media campaign to try to link objection to state electors to the riot that occurred at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  This is not rational. None of these men nor any of the other legislators called for a riot or violence of any sort following this. They simply called for an examination of voting procedures after what appeared to be irregularities in some states. Those that had the integrity to call for a debate and examination after evidence was presented that fraud might have occurred did what was right and I commend them for their courage.     

Doug Nord

Larned