In a post-January 6th world, people named Donald Trump are still spreading lies about a stolen election, so it's best to avoid anything that could further fuel a dangerous conspiracy.
Some Democrats are learning the hard way that they have to be careful what they say, especially if they want to truly separate themselves from the Republican Party and President Trump's tolerance of election denialism.
In North Carolina, for example, a Democratic lawmaker has come under fire for protests alleging election fraud after losing the primary to a progressive challenger. North Carolina Rep. Michael Wray, one of several moderate Democrats who has come under fire for siding with Republicans on key bills, is trailing teacher Rodney Pierce in the 27th House District by 0.36 percentage points. Looks like I've been defeated.
But Ray filed election protests last week, citing problems with voting in all three counties in his district. Among Ray's concerns is that when multiple voters went to the polls, they were given the wrong ballots and some voters were mistakenly rejected. Ray also claimed that in one precinct, poll workers on the ground were encouraging people to vote for Pierce. His protest calls for an investigation into the alleged fraud and an update on the vote count.
Mr. Wray's claims of fraud amounted to less than the roughly three dozen votes that separated him from Mr. Pierce, and Mr. Wray acknowledged that his protests were unlikely to change the outcome of the race. Wray also formally requested a recount, which state law allows in races with a margin of less than 1%.
Mr. Wray's protest drew criticism from left-wing groups including the North Carolina Young Democrats, the North Carolina AFL-CIO, and the League of Conservative Voters, all of which called for Mr. Wray to concede the race. “At a time when trust in our nation's institutions is at stake, promoting conspiracy theories about our electoral process is wrong and has real consequences,” Pearce said in a statement.
story continues
Mr. Ray did not respond to my request for comment.
Wray certainly isn't the first candidate to protest in a very close race, nor is he the first Democratic candidate to protest. Democrat Cheri Beasley claimed in 2020 that thousands of votes were unfairly disqualified after she lost the race for state Supreme Court chief justice to Republican Paul Newby by just a few hundred votes. Protests were held across the state, demanding a recount.
Of course, that was before Mr. Trump and his supporters tried to overturn a legitimate election, so it's understandable that some would be alarmed to see similar behavior today.
A great example of what not to do happened this month in California. At the time, Rep. Katie Porter lost decisively to Adam Schiff in the primary for California's vacant U.S. Senate seat. In a statement after his loss, Porter said there was an “onslaught of billionaires who spent millions of dollars rigging this election.” It was an unwise way to express her dissatisfaction with the amount of outside spending in her race. But after receiving criticism, Mr Porter chose to double down, saying the vote had been “rigged by fraudulent means”.
That is inappropriate, and Democrats must resist the temptation to use any kind of rhetoric that could further undermine electoral confidence, especially when they present themselves as the party of a small democracy. Must be. Porter may have felt the odds were stacked against him in the Senate race, but words like “rigged” and “manipulated” cross the line to imply foul play.
To his credit, Ray doesn't use those words, but he should tread carefully. It would be a different story if he was simply exercising his right to protest the outcome in good faith based on legitimate concerns brought to his attention. But if he's using it as a tool to challenge election results he doesn't like, that's unacceptable, and Trump and his supporters are trying to overturn the 2020 election in multiple states. It is too similar to the legal path taken by those who have taken it.
What matters most is how Mr. Wray, and other candidates in his position, react after his claims are raised. State law gives him the right to have his concerns heard, but if election officials find his claims unfounded, he could accept his defeat without further questioning the results. You have to make concessions. That is the real difference between respecting democracy and denying democracy.
