The Case for International Election Monitors in the U.S.

If elected officials are sincerely "concerned" about election integrity and voter fraud, it's high time they act like it.

---

PSA: Apologies in advance for any (and all) typos, auto-correct-prompted mistakes, spelling errors, and so forth. I wrote this in an uninterrupted 30 minute stream-of-consciousness rant — I’ll actually do a round of edits once I’ve taken care of other, non-writing matters.

---

Amidst an already polarized U.S. political climate that appears increasingly exacerbated with every day that goes by, perhaps the closest remaining point of bipartisan agreement is — our political leadership is, by and large, broadly full of shit.

Nowhere is this widespread perspective more evident than in debates around the issues of election integrity, threats to American democracy, and the appropriate measures for remedy. Democrats and Republicans alike routinely seize on the argument that their respective political opponents constitute a fundamental threat to American democracy, and thus, the very foundation of the United States as a nation.

Now, to make myself explicitly clear in advance here (and attempt to provide a preemptive caveat): I very much share the view that Trump’s administration (more accurately, shall we say, the regime) poses a dire, existential threat to American democracy that further demonstrates an underlying intent and agenda of fascist power consolidation. As those of you who follow my work undoubtedly already know, furthermore, I find the Democratic Party’s elected officials overwhelmingly lacking in terms of their capacity to provide much in the way of meaningful defense against this authoritarian, fascist threat to us all.

That said, however, my own political views are not the point here, nor do they constitute the focus on this essay. Instead, I want to advance the idea that the United States is long overdue for a proposal that international elections monitors participate in the American electoral process and, more crucially, that the relative likelihood of such a proposal’s success (however much it is desired) or failure proves immaterial to the key question at hand — force elected leaders across the political spectrum to directly confront the foundational claims upon which they are willing to stake not only their own professional records and the legitimacy of their political strategy — but also our country’s collective future.

It’s long past time to put our elected officials’ alleged “concern” and “concern” to the test, and offer a plausible solution to what both the MAGA GOP and DNC claim is an existential threat to the United States: election integrity. Stated simply — we have no other option in the face of ever more eroded public faith in the legitimacy of the American democratic process.

We need international election monitors.

Over a Decade of Democratic Degradation - Elections Flashback

Even before his initial electoral victory in the 2016 presidential race, President Donald J. Trump relied on claims of “election rigging” — both to galvanize voter turnout among his base, and more critically, as a preemptive “fail-safe” mechanism to explain away the humiliation of a potential defeat. To be a bit more blunt here, Trump’s record of deliberately eroding public faith in electoral legitimacy has constituted his key strategy for over a decade.

Weeks before his victory over Hilary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, Donald J. Trump takes to Twitter in an attempt to preemptively attribute potential loss to “large scale voter fraud,” accusing fellow party leaders of complicity.

Now, we’re all familiar with the numerous results of this consistently repeated effort to dismiss election losses through allegations of partisan vote “rigging” and “election theft,” ranging from Trump’s multiple [failed] lawsuits to, most notably, the strategy’s infamous culmination: the January 6th siege of the U.S. Capitol, instigated by “Stop the Steal” organizers, and further encouraged by Trump himself.

It’s little surprise, then, that Trump’s wildfire fraud accusations continue in his second presidential term — unilaterally weaponized by GOP leadership in the name of alleged “illegal voters” to justify the wanton, draconian style of ICE and CBP “immigration enforcement” raids that continue to rock the Twin Cities.

Democratic Party officials, in response to mass public outcry over the daily lawlessness and chaos exhibited by the actions of ICE and CBP agents, all too frequently rely on toothless expressions of “alarm” and “deep concern,” alongside emphatic “demands” that DHS enact meaningful reform for immigration enforcement operations, such as … following laws that already exist.

Over the past few days, however, the DNC pushback against ICE and DHS appears a bit more serious, rather than largely performative. To my mind, this increasingly sincere escalation can be attributed to one particular function DHS’ immigration agents are gearing up to fulfill: the use of ICE and Border Patrol to provide supposed election security — a move Democrats view as an obvious attempt at voter suppression.

Although I certainly agree with the DNC and other anti-MAGA critics who call attention to Trump’s transparent attempts at quashing the democratic process to ensure continued political dominance by his GOP, the question of authoritarian fascist power consolidation is not, I remind you, the central thrust of the present article. My focus here, rather, is the necessity of holding elected officials’ feet to the proverbial fire when it comes to their claims of ostensibly sincere alarm over election integrity or alleged voter fraud — on both sides of the political spectrum.

So, consider:

If Democrats are sincerely concerned about the Trump / MAGA threat to election security, they need to loudly, publicly, and relentlessly demand international election monitors. Barring that, Democrats should logically have zero objection to the proposal of such a measure as necessary to secure election integrity in the face of the grave threats identified by their elected political officials.

If Trump and MAGA are seriously concerned about their own allegations of voter fraud, they would loudly, publicly, and relentlessly demand international election monitors — NOT the use of immigration enforcement ICE agents as election security. Barring that, Republicans should logically have zero objection to the proposal of such a measure as necessary to secure election integrity in the face of the grave threats identified by their elected political officials.

“No elected official affiliated with the GOP would agree to consider international elections observers”

In case you’re tempted to object that “no elected official affiliated with the GOP would agree to consider international elections observers,” — well, yes. Do I actually expect any member of MAGA’s GOP to consider international election monitors for the US? Hell no; of course not — but that’s precisely the point.

President Donald J. Trump once again declares undocumented immigrants a severe threat to American election integrity, suggesting Democratic complicit in alleged widespread voter fraud imperiling the United States, and proposes “nationalizing” the voting system of “at least 15 places” with Republican control and oversight alone — interview with Dan Bongino, February

The Trump (and MAGA) GOP agenda, from immigration enforcement and deportation policies, to aspirations for the acquisition of Greenland and reversal of DEI policies across every type of institution, relies on two foundational and interrelated claims. Forcing GOP leadership to confront the question of international election observers brings into focus the centrality and legitimacy of these two key points:

1) The Exceptional American Project and United States democracy (as well as, by extension, “Western Civilization” in entirety) is in peril, facing an existential threat posed by Democratic “bad actors” hellbent on “importing” undocumented immigrants to rig political elections through allegedly widespread voter fraud that will result in the irrevocably destruction of American identity, supremacy, and democratic freedoms.

2) Trump’s presidency has, among other such supposed accomplishments, returned the United States to its previously imperiled status as Beacon of the Free World, and indisputable example for other nations to emulate — a record, we are often told, demonstrably proven by other international leaders’ willingness to grant any request from Trump, as well as publicly genuflect in gratitude over his key role in championing freedom and liberty in their own countries.

For GOP / MAGA leadership to dismiss the idea of proposed international election observers, one — or both — of the above claims must necessarily be relinquished: either (claim 1) the oft-cited existential threat to US democracy is, at base, simply overblown, or 2) Trump has not, in fact, secured global admiration for his leadership and preservation of American democracy and Western civilization allegedly in grave peril. After all, certainly such global goodwill from grateful international leaders would undoubtedly translate into the world’s coalition willingness to defend their American protector against threats from within.

Most of those reading this (given the source) are all too well aware of the (quite obvious fact) that MAGA’s GOP suffers no anxiety about making insincere claims and advancing flat out lies (recall, if you will, J.D. Vance’s admission on CNN when pressed over incitement of anti-immigrant panic through the deliberate untruth that Ohio immigrants terrorized their community by stealing, and eating, pets : “if I have to make up a story to get media attention, that’s what I’m gonna do.”).

That fundamentally obvious point — this administration is staffed entirely by gleefully pathological liars — does not negate the broader objective here: the well established track record of deliberate GOP / MAGA lies does NOT mean any of us can, or should, “give up” on forcing them to repeatedly prove it.

“Democratic officials are never willing to do anything about Trump’s authoritarianism, other than issue empty statements”

Now, in case you feel the need to lament, “Democratic officials are never willing to do anything about Trump’s authoritarianism, other than issue empty statements,” — exactly. Once again, this is precisely the reason we must raise the proposal for election observers.

The very same logic previously discussed in relation to the GOP proves equally applicable to Democratic Party leadership.

In contrast with far too frequently toothless “demands” issued by Democratic officials in response to worrisome authoritarian measured taken by the Trump administration (for example, Hakeem Jeffries’ exhortation that DHS crack down on ICE’s lawlessness in immigration enforcement by way of “meaningful reforms” — such as… following laws that already exist), we must pressure DNC leadership to prove their sincerity in action, not just further (and repetitively) hollow statements.

Democratic Party official Chuck Schumer addressed President Trump’s threat to nationalize election, posing the rhetorical question “You think he [Trump] believes in democracy?” and recommending, as tongue-in-cheek remedy, that Trump receive a copy of the Constitution to better assess the idea of democratic process.

The question of international election monitors, as per the Democratic Party, again bring to the forefront of political debate two central points of contention:

1) Democrats sincerely believe Trump and the MAGA GOP are fascist threats to American democracy; and:

2) DNC leadership is willing to take all necessary measures for the protection of that legitimate existential threat to American democracy, rather than cave to GOP pressure out of cynical fears about their own re-election (and trepidation about alienating corporate campaign donors, such as the tech companies which profit considerably from the very same authoritarian carceral regime advanced by the Trump administration).

At the risk of redundancy, one can yet again understand Democratic leadership’s refusal to consider US international election monitors in the context of the above two fundamental claims. Elected officials who decline proposals for such international observers logically concede to either: 1) intentionally dishonest and hyperbolic alarmism over the severity of Trump’s authoritarian threat (in the former case); or, in the case of the latter point discussed above: 2) Democratic leadership view the legitimacy of the American democratic process as an issue they are unwilling, and far too weak, to prioritize defending.

To recap here: we must hold Democratic Party officials’ feet to the fire, and force them to instantiate rhetoric with action — in other words, put up or shut up.

How Do You Think We Got Here? And, More Importantly — How the Hell Do We Get Out?

The idea that the United States needs international elections observers is neither radical, nor an observation made of recent events and political partisanship. As far back as Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000), also known as the notorious Supreme Court litigation over George W. Bush’s contested electoral victory (which rested on debates over the state of Florida’s recount), the need for such a proposal was readily apparent and, bluntly, simply common sense, even to me — a veritable baby in high school at the time.

I’ve continued to sound the alarm over our country’s need for international election monitors for quite some time now — particularly as professional experience has irrefutably demonstrated the feasibility of such an approach to election integrity, even —or especially — in a (supposedly) “free country.” As a Ph.D. student at Emory University in Atlanta (and after, as a postdoc and NEH Assistant Professor elsewhere involved in negotiation processes and diplomatic interventions concerning the Syrian Civil War), I myself as well as many, many friends participated in one way or another with the Carter Center’s Democracy Program — whether working abroad as monitors, or on other related matters involving threats to democracy the world over.

Two additional factors make the proposed idea of calling upon political leadership to support international election observers in order to secure American election integrity: the FBI’s widely publicized raid on a target for particular ire from the Trump administration: Atlanta, Georgia’s Fulton County Elections Office (as well as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s presence on-scene at the time), in addition to the post-raid announcement by DNI Gabbard of planned enhanced intelligence sharing with local law enforcement agencies. The second “five-alarm” alert that should awaken us all to the need for impartial election security is, as previously mentioned, President Donald J. Trump’s transparent intent to not only repeat his previous “rigged election” claims, but further dismantle the American democratic process through the nationalization of elections on a partisan political basis and secure “federal” (read: MAGA / GOP) control over local and state elections.

Once again, I remind us all — it’s time.

DEFCON 0 Level Threat Warning for American Democracy

To sum up this long-winded, but arguably necessary, rant about the urgent necessity of proposing international election monitors as a means to secure the American electoral process and security, I would like to close by posing two questions for reader consideration:

1. Take a moment to examine your own reaction to this idea, namely the knee-jerk response (an objection that even I find myself tempted to make) “but this wouldn’t work; no elected leader would support that proposal.” In light of the — forgive my language, but there’s simply no other way to accurately describe it — complete and utter Shit Show Cluster Fuck™ we’re currently facing: why not try anything and everything imaginable? After all, floating the proposed idea can’t exactly make things any worse.

2. Go back and skim the previous sections above, addressed to likely objections from both Republicans and Democrats. And regardless of which, if any, political label to which you’re attached, ask yourself what possible rationale could your party’s elected official find for dismissing election monitors out of hand, and more importantly — do their substantive actions match, or contradict, their political rhetoric’s claims?

Finally, never forget:

Opposition to the idea of international election monitors INVARIABLY stems from highly partisan, politically motivated bad faith actors who nonetheless claim to be gravely concerned about the issue of election integrity.

We’re at DEFCON 0 here, people — meaning, elected officials, it’s time to show the fuck up, or shut the fuck up.

---