The motive to create a well-set scheme to pull-up electors to forge the 2020 votings in the seven states under President Joe Biden’s rule. The move was played with by replacing the real electors with in the seven major states with the fake electors that would help Donald Trump (former President) get extra votes.
Following up with the Hawaii 1960 election fraud case, there are arguments that a similar strategy was used by the democrats in the election face-off between John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon. While Nixon’s win over Kennedy held up a lot of questions, as the win-margin counted to 150 votes, assured by the Republican Lieutenant Governor, Hawaii.
The law experts are of opinion that the Hawaii, 1960 and Trump’s 2020 case have different points to be considered. The cases are being compared as per the recount processes, electors, elector meetings and the vice president’s decisions as well.
As per Joan Meyer, (member at Thompson Hine Law firm), the state demanded a recount of votes by the court as the win remained questionable. The Republicans sent three votes for Nixon, with Democrats doing the same for Kennedy, and Kennedy was the winner, but win margin was counted to 115 votes.
But David Alan Sklansky (Law prof., Stanford University) acknowledged the differences in the Hawaii election and Trump’s 2020 case saying, “In Trump’s case there were no genuine grounds for uncertainty about the outcome of the election, no ongoing recount, and Trump’s slates of fake electors were assembled with the intent to sow confusion, buffalo Congress and the Vice President, and stop them from certifying the genuine election results.”
Meyer said, “trump challenged the Georgia results and failed to get any traction. In Hawaii in 1960, a count was overseeing the recount process which resulted in the reversal of the win from Nixon to Kennedy.”
While Ilya Somin, a law professor from George Mason University said, “the 1960 Hawaii dispute had no chance of overturning the overall election result and was not a part of a general scheme to rig or steal the election.”
Where discussing about how the Hawaii elections were transparent, Trump and his members held a secret meet for the fake electors, Meyer said, “This surreptitious behavior indicates that this was not an honest disagreement or a back up plan to keep options open, it was a plot to substitute legitimate elections with fake ones.”
While she continued, the 1960 3-vote certificates sent to Congress were “intended to be a backstop utilized after a court ordered recount declaring the victory of the presidential election,” while the 2020 election certificates were signed by fake electors.
Marc Scholl, counsel – Lewis Baach Kaufmann & Middlemiss, New York, focused on how the Trump’s party pressurized the Vice President to reject the real and consider fake electors instead. He said, while Trump forced Vice president to do so, in Hawaii, 1960 case, “It is hard to convince the jury that there was a fraudulent intent by the Democrat electors when it turned out that Kennedy had won, and they substituted a correct certificate approved by the Governor of Hawaii.”
The law persons identified the differences among both the cases, with different perspectives and valid explanations, that intensified the belief of Democrats being involved with the Trump’s fake electors in forging the 2020 votings.