Source: Politics<\/p>\n
When Donald Trump\u2019s allies signed false documents<\/a> claiming he won several states he lost \u2014 and that they were his legitimate presidential electors \u2014 they came armed with an excuse: Democrats did it first, 60 years earlier in Hawaii.<\/p>\n Their explanation relied heavily on the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who was vice president at the time.<\/p>\n By December 1960, it was clear Kennedy had won. Only Hawaii\u2019s result remained in doubt. Nixon had prevailed by just 140 votes, according to the initial results, which were certified by the governor. A recount was underway on Dec. 19, 1960, when presidential electors across the nation were required by law to meet and cast their ballots.<\/p>\n Nixon\u2019s Hawaii electors met and cast their three votes in an official ceremony. But nearby, Kennedy\u2019s three elector nominees gathered and signed their own certificates, delivering them to Washington as though Kennedy had won the state.<\/p>\n The Hawaii episode has become an important flashpoint as prosecutors scrutinize whether the pro-Trump electors broke any laws. Justice Department leaders say<\/a> the matter is under investigation, and several Democratic secretaries of state and attorneys general have similarly raised the specter of crimes like mail or election fraud. The Jan. 6 select committee is probing<\/a> the false electors for evidence of coordination with the Trump campaign or White House.<\/p>\n While Republicans have used the incident to justify the actions of Trump\u2019s illegitimate electors for the past year, POLITICO has newly obtained records that shed light on those claims.<\/p>\n Until now, it\u2019s been unclear whether the 1960 case of the Kennedy electors was truly analogous to 2020 Trump electors. But the unofficial Democratic certificates<\/a>, obtained by POLITICO from the non-digitized files of the National Archives, show the three Kennedy electors signed documents that are remarkably similar to the false Trump-elector certificates.<\/p>\n The certificates describe the three Democrats as the \u201cduly and legally appointed and qualified\u201d members of the Electoral College. The envelope containing the certificates, stamped Dec. 22, 1960, includes another avowal: \u201cWe hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for president \u2026 are contained herein.\u201d The documents do not mention the ongoing recount or that Nixon\u2019s Hawaii victory had been certified<\/a>.<\/p>\n Instead, the Hawaii Democrats used virtually the same language that the false Trump electors in five states used in their effort to upend the 2020 race. In those documents \u2014 from Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia \u2014 the pro-Turmp activists described themselves as \u201cduly elected and qualified.\u201d In two other states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Trump allies submitted alternative elector slates but included a caveat: their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles broke in favor of Trump.<\/p>\n Charlie Gerow, a veteran Pennsylvania Republican strategist who signed one of the pro-Trump elector certificates, said he and several other electors who were lawyers devised the strategy to include a caveat.<\/p>\n \u201cWe put in the contingent language quite bluntly because I and several others in the room who were lawyers insisted upon it,\u201d said Gerow, who is currently running for governor. \u201cWe inserted that language specifically to avoid some of the charges that are coming from the left.\u201d<\/p>\n Gerow said the Trump allies met at the offices of his firm, Quantum Communications, to sign the Pennsylvania certificates. At that time, several of Trump\u2019s long shot court challenges were still pending, he noted, and the Trump electors in those states wanted to be ready in the off-chance a court handed Trump a win.<\/p>\n Although the three Democratic electors in Hawaii took the same action \u2014 signing false certificates \u2014 it does not appear they ever faced similar scrutiny, in part because of what happened next. Namely, that Hawaii\u2019s recount ultimately did reverse the state\u2019s election outcome.<\/p>\n Kennedy prevailed by an eyelash when the recount concluded on Dec. 28, 1960. A newly sworn-in governor certified the Kennedy victory and transmitted a new slate of Electoral College certificates<\/a> \u2014 signed by the same three Democrats who falsely claimed to have won two weeks earlier.<\/p>\n When Nixon, like Mike Pence, presided over the Electoral College counting session on Jan. 6, 1961<\/a>, he acknowledged receiving all three sets of certificates: the GOP slate, the uncertified Democratic slate and the certified Democratic slate.<\/p>\n He then agreed that the newest one \u2014 the Democrats certified by Gov. William Quinn \u2014 should be counted, even though they were certified weeks after the required meeting of the Electoral College. Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future.<\/p>\n That newest slate \u201cproperly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the electors chosen by the people of Hawaii,\u201d Nixon said.<\/p>\n One crucial feature of the 1960 episode is that a state court weighed in on Jan. 4, 1961, two days before Nixon oversaw the electoral vote count.<\/p>\n In that case, Judge Ronald Jamieson agreed that the certified Kennedy electors were legitimate. But, more significantly, Jamieson said it was important that those electors met and gathered on Dec. 19, 1960, as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act.<\/p>\n Rather than suggest the Democratic electors committed fraud, the judge pointed to their meeting as a key step that preserved their ability to be counted after the recount showed Kennedy had actually won the state. Jamieson also reportedly threw out<\/a> an effort by the GOP electors to scrap the entire election because of fraud allegations.<\/p>\n The ruling wasn\u2019t appealed and holds no binding weight, but it\u2019s the only legal precedent for dueling Electoral College slates since the Electoral Count Act passed in 1887.<\/p>\nThe Hawaii documents<\/h6>\n
Why Hawaii 1960 isn\u2019t the same as Trump 2020<\/h6>\n