Columns, Constitutional Law, Politics

The Guardians of Democracy: Democrats Move to Protect Democracy from Itself

Below is my column in the Hill on efforts to bar or limit voting in the primary and general presidential elections. What is so striking is how these distinctly anti-democratic actions are being taken in the name of democracy.

Here is the column:

Across news sites, Democrats are warning of the imminent death of democracy. Hillary Clinton has warned that a Trump victory would be the end of democracy. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is warning of “executions.” Even actors like Robert DeNiro are predicting that this may be our very last democratic election.

Yet these harbingers of tyranny are increasingly pursuing the very course that will make their predictions come true. The Democratic Party is actively seeking to deny voters choices in this election, supposedly to save democracy.

Henry Ford once promised customers any color so long as it is black. Democrats are adopting the same approach to the election: You can have any candidate on the ballot, as long as it’s Joe Biden.

This week, the Executive Committee of the Florida Democratic Democracy told voters that they would not be allowed to vote against Biden. Even though he has opponents in the primary, the party leadership has ordered that only Biden will appear on the primary ballot.

And if you want to register your discontent with Biden with a write-in vote, forget about it. Under Florida law, if the party approves only one name, there will be no primary ballots at all. The party just called the election for Biden before a single vote has been cast.

This is not unprecedented. It happened with Barack Obama in 2012 and, on the Republican side, with George W. Bush in 2004. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

As Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) noted, “Americans would expect the absence of democracy in Tehran, not Tallahassee. Our mission as Democrats is to defeat authoritarians, not become them.”

In Iran, the mullahs routinely bar opposition candidates from ballots as “Guardians” of the ballots.

There is good reason for the Biden White House to want the election called before it is held. A CNN poll found that two out of three Democrats believe that the party should nominate someone else. A Wall Street Journal poll that found 73 percent of voters say Biden is “too old to run for president.”

The party leadership is solving that problem by depriving Democratic voters of a choice.

In other states, Democratic politicians and lawyers are pursuing a different strategy: “You can have any candidate, as long as it isn’t Trump.”

They are seeking to bar Trump from ballots under a novel theory about the 14th Amendment. In states from Colorado to Michigan, Democratic operatives are arguing that Trump must be taken off the ballots because he gave “aid and comfort” to an “insurrection or rebellion.” Other Democrats have called for more than 120 other Republicans to be stripped from the ballots under the same claim tied to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

This effort is being supported by academics such as Laurence Tribe, who previously called for Trump to be charged with the attempted murder of former Vice President Mike Pence.

In a recent filing supporting this effort, figures as prominent as media lawyer Floyd Abrams and Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky have told the Colorado Supreme Court that preventing voters from being able to cast their votes for Trump is just a way of “fostering democracy.” So long as courts believe that a candidate’s speech is “capable of triggering disqualification,” that speech is unprotected in their view.

I have long criticized this theory as legally and historically unfounded. It is also an extremely dangerous theory that would allow majorities in different states to ban opposing candidates in tit-for-tat actions.

So far, these efforts around the country have met with defeat in court after court, but the effort continues, and with the support of many in the media.

Some national polls show Trump as the most popular candidate for the 2024 election, while a few show Biden slightly ahead. Yet, despite 74 million voters supporting Trump in the last election, these Democrats are insisting that voters should not be allowed to vote for him, in the name of democracy.

In fairness to Democratic partisans like Clinton and Maddow, they could well be right. The 2024 election could well prove the end to democracy — if these efforts succeeded in purging ballots of opposing candidates.

It is all part of an electoral variation on the Vietnam War claim that it is sometimes necessary to destroy a village in order to save it.

Democrats claim to be right and to have the best of motivations, which is why they feel justified in saving democracy by denying it to the voters. After all, it is all about motivation where any means are justified. They are trying to save democracy by limiting it.

Thus, it is an assault on democracy for Republican lawyers to challenge elections based on alleged problems with voting machines, but it is protecting democracy for former Clinton general counsel (and founder of the “Democracy Docket”) Marc Elias to claim that a machine could flip the results in favor of the GOP.

In Tehran, a popular joke emerged after the “Guardian Council” approved only one candidate, Chief Justice Ebrahim Raisi, to appear on a ballot. Democracy, the joke went, was safe, because the Guardians would allow Raisi to run against six other spellings of his own name.

The American election guardians in Florida did one better. They have arranged for there to be no ballot at all. Who needs the pretense of a primary when you can simply dictate the result?

Yet, rest assured, you may be able to cast a vote for an approved slate of candidates of healthy choices. Consider it a type of “Big Gulp” election, where you are protected against your own bad choices like a sugary drink at 7-11.

Actor Seth Rogen has pledged to “vote for whoever is the Democrat. That’s all I need to know.” If these efforts are successful, many voters could be left with that single liberating choice.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

180 thoughts on “The Guardians of Democracy: Democrats Move to Protect Democracy from Itself”

  1. “The Democratic Party is actively seeking to deny voters choices in this election . . .”

    Why don’t they just cut to the chase: President via Divine Succession. (With “Divine” meaning “Democrat”)

  2. Why is Turley or anyone surprised the Democrats are doing what they are re elections?

    If they want to dictate how much water your toilet can flush….dictate what kind of car you drive…dictate .what. you can say…..why the surprise they want to dictate who. you can vote for?

    For the trolls here….if you look very carefully at that second sentence (meaning the one immediately before this one) you will see who is trying to be the “Dictator” and thus trying to destroy “Democracy” in America.

    For the dullards….the answer is the Democrat Party and it’s useful idiots in the media those who blindly support them.

    Remember those 74 Million people…..the vast majority that just wish to be left alone and live their lives…raise their families….run the businesses….attend their Churches….you know like just live in peace…..go too far and they shall decide to get really involved in sorting this mess out.

    Ya’ll be messing up this time for sure!

    Which spark do. you think shall ignite that wild fire…..is this issue it….will it be Florida this time instead of South Carolina?

    1. Which party is “dictating” what books are prohibited from a school’s library?

      Which party is “dictating” what bathroom or sports team is appropriate for a transgender person?

      Which party is “dictating” which religious tradition should be posted on every classroom wall in Texas?

      Which party is “dictating” what a woman does with her body?

      I could go on.

      Both parties are moving towards authoritarianism. Framing this as red vs. blue is simply misleading.

      1. There is an obvious distinction between making discrete policy decisions (e.g. ,”dictating” what books are used in public schools) and deciding who is allowed to seek public office. The former is the normal functioning of any government. The latter is a closed political system.

        1. GOP (and to a lesser extent) the Democrats are doing that too. Just look at the partisan gerrymandering efforts, which is honestly the biggest reason for the polarization of our current politics.

          This has the effect of deciding who can seek public office because it benefits extremists at the expense of moderate candidates.

          1. Gerrymandering is required by several judicial decisions. 50 years ago (when the taught civics) we learned that Gerrymandering was good and needed.
            Now it is evil?

            1. What?

              https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2017/02/elbridge-gerry-and-the-monstrous-gerrymander/

              Did you not learn about the first “gerrymander” in MA, which was an intentional effort to draw districts to benefit the Federalists over the Republicans?

              As the Boston Gazette stated of the “salamander” shape of Gerry’s district: ““The horrid Monster of which this drawing is a correct representation, appeared in the County of Essex, during the last session of the Legislature.” The word has since entered into national and international political language.”

              How could you have received a Civics lesson about gerrymandering and not seen this cartoon caption and the meaning behind it?

              And if you did, how could using the power to draw district lines to favor incumbents be a “good and needed” practice? Yikes.

              1. That is an example of the bad. We were taught, it was mandatory to create majority minority legislative districts. Today, judges are ruling those majority minority districts must be gerrymandered to maintian the “Correct” electoral outcome.

                1. All gerrymandering is bad. And more to the point, it is deeply undemocratic.

                  I think the issue is that you don’t know what the word means.

                  Gerrymandering refers specifically to drawing lines to advance the interests of the incumbent party (whether that be GOP or Dem). Districts re-drawn to comply with federal law, such as the VRA, are not gerrymandering, unless such re-drawing is done in a way, which advances the interests of the incumbent party.

                  Hopefully, Civics courses in 2023 are better than they were in 1973.

      2. “Which party is “dictating” what bathroom or sports team is appropriate for a transgender person?”

        The same party that thinks there is such a thing as choosing your “gender”. Where have you been?

        1. Jimmy,
          I would add,
          “Which party is anti-women’s rights?”
          “Which party is for grooming six year olds?”
          “Which party is anti-Israel?”

          1. It looks like estovir/antonio is projecting. Estovir continues to repress his altar boy experiences – seek help before you victimize a child.

          2. Jimmy,
            I would add,
            “Which party is anti-women’s rights?”
            “Which party is for grooming six year olds?”
            “Which party is anti-Israel?”

            translated: Democrats are the culture of death

            they are abortifacients, infertile, abhor life and breed only hate.

            Hate is all the Dems know, as the numerous troll comments by the one and the same incel on this forum demonstrates hourly.

          1. Thank you sir! Subsonic and suppressed! 180 yards and he dropped in his tracks. Almost a foot of drop from the 350 grain slugs, its not the one I’d select if I was starving, but it’s a blast!

              1. And here is the little c*nt who refuses to own his comments, back as a sock puppet, demonstrating more utter ignorance.

                I take it you don’t eat chicken. The methods hunter’s use for taking down the game they eat is FAR more humane than chicken farms/processing.

                I guess you’re a lionhearted hero, stalking your prey in the meat dept at Publix.

                Bwahahahahahaha. C*nt

                1. Not very catholic of you. And you are the one making false claims, and your legion of sock puppets are well known.

                  1. Thats it, dum dum. Claim its not you while suggesting i am estovir, which is a dead giveaway that you’re the little booger eating kunt elvis bug. Lmao

                    Why does that whacko get top billing anyway? I’m not a Catholic and never have been.

                    I am a born again Christian, raised in the Southern Baptist Church. I am also an agnostic, who overcame the brain washing and does not believe that Jehovah exists. See, the SBC teaches once saved, always saved. So I am free to do whatever i want, like calling you out for the little kunt that you are, buggy boy.

            1. Estovir,
              I have not had the pleasure of shooting a Walther and the only Glock I have shot was a long time ago, GEN I. I liked everything about the Glock but the GEN I just did not fit my hand.
              I am going to go to my fall back, basic response when it comes to firearms: Shoot as many as you can for the purpose you intend to carry and pick the one that
              1) Fits your hand/s the best you can shoot well.
              2) In a caliber you can shoot comfortably.
              3) The one you enjoy shooting.
              It can be a $3k race gun but if it does not fit my hand and I cannot shoot it well, no point.
              Some calibers in a full frame handgun are easy to shoot. That caliber in a smaller platform like a CCW pocket pistol not so much.
              Ever have a firearm that looks great, handles well, fits your body well and then you shoot it and your shoulder or hand says differently? Yeah. If it is not fun to shoot, you likely will not shoot or practice with it often.
              Looking over that article and have read about the history and reputation of Walther and Glock I do not think you could go wrong with either. Some features to take into consideration is the ability to mount a laser, flash light or a combo. As of late, the ability to mount a top slide optic.
              Also, the availability of holsters should be a consideration, inside the waist band, outside and even leg drop.
              I would also consider the FNH 509 CC Edge series of handguns as well.
              Hope this helps!

              1. Thanks for your feedback. I purchased my first Glock 19, 2nd gen, in 1997, and got a concealed weapons permit. Fits my large hand perfectly (glove size, 9). I found it too bulky to carry on my person in clinic, so I purchased a Glock 26, subcompact. It is on my person when not at home. My friend, a Mensa member and gun aficionado, bought his wife a Walther pistol and she tells me it is perfect for her carrying purposes. They feel I should consider a Walther since my spouse doesnt like the Glocks. 🤷🏿‍♂️

                The Leftist turn of Democrats, now synonymous with each other, which made me leave the Dem Party in 2020, has persuaded me to appreciate the 2A like never before. So, thank you Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, AOC, and their Nazi colleagues in the DNC/MSM for teaching yet another person of color, minority, immigrant, oppressed Catholic, the value of the 2A.

                💪🏾🇺🇸

                1. Glock 43X, Aftermarket Mag (15 round) plus one for 16 in 9MM.

                  Double stack compact but with large grip.

                  Or…a Smith and Wesson hammerless air weight .38special for a pocket gun.

                  A don’t leave home without it is a North American Arms .22Magnum five shot derringer looking revolver….not much bigger than a Key Fob for your car.

                  But if you carry be proficient, know the Laws that apply, stay legal….and use your Situational Awareness to avoid trouble….but if it finds you…be willing or be a victim.

              2. My .02 on picking a ccw for a spouse (female). Go SMALL. Remember, in 99% of situations, the object is to get a threat OFF or OUT of your personal space. This eliminates the need to be accurate at distance or have 44 mag stopping power.
                If a gun is too big, it wont get carried. Think about what women carry for bags. Its not always large. If its unwieldy, not ideal for self defense.
                I have gifted more than one young lady a Ruger LCP.

      3. The book thing is a read herring. The Battle is not the books. The battle is parents demanding their rights to be an intragal part of their childs education.

        There a male teams and female teams. Something females have been demanding for 100 years.
        This is not complicated(unless you are a dem and need to invent a wedge issue.

        What a woman does with here body Baby? Not murder it ,is a good start. Laws protecting the most vulnerable are littered throughout our legal statutes.

      4. Which party is “fixated” on the sexualization of children?

        Leave the kids alone, is that too difficult? Yes, for the dems it is. All of those “dictations” are guises under which democrats exploit mentally challenged people to ignore the leaderships’ exploitation of children and the destruction of families.

        Go back to Epstein Island and stay there, sicko.

        1. The GOP. Just look at how much time during the debates was focused on the topic.

  3. Professor Turley,

    Claiming that Democrats are the ones pushing for Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment is misleading.

    As you yourself have recognized, the theory is a product of a paper written by conservative, Federalist Society law professors.
    https://jonathanturley.org/2023/08/21/the-disqualification-of-donald-trump-and-other-legal-urban-legends/

    Baude and Paulsen’s originalist paper was the original catalyst for the legal theory. They are conservative law professors, not Democrats.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

    By inaccurately framing this push to disqualify Trump as a GOP vs. Dem fight, you yourself are fueling the “Age of Rage.”

    2. The fact that they may be members of the Federalist Society hardly proves that they are “conservatives.”. In any event, argument from authority is a weak form of argument.

      1. They are conservative. Turley even refers to them as such in the article I linked above…

        Nice try though

    3. “Original catalyst “. This urban legend existed as was spread by Rhinos anti trumpers and democrats starting Jan 6th. Long before the article appearing in the Federalist.

      1. Do you have the receipts? Which Democrat and/or anti-Trumper first spread this specific legal theory before Baude and Paulsen? On what date?

      1. A curious perspective given your affinity for this blog, in which a lawyer often writes legal opinions.

        1. Curious in what way?

          I in no way think masturbation is some kind of slur. Its not.
          Its. universal, something all partake in, regardless of ideology.
          Something that’s fun and worth the effort.

          You try to use legal writings as a proxy for politics. While it can be, it is not a very good Proxy. Justice Scalia said. If you are doing it right (writing legal opinions) you will write some you really hate. precisely because it is counter to your ideology, but demanded by the Constitution and Rule of law.

          This is the part you trolls all get wrong about Turley. You are mad at him, but what really upsets you is the Constitution.

            1. No not satisfied.
              More than half of the Republican Party are never Trumpers.

              This is not about party. This is about Trump threatening the Washington DC Grift.

              I would like Trump to pickup DeSantis campaign promise to move half of DC, OUT of DC. He promised Iowa they would have a fair shot at getting the Dept of AG. The FBI needs to build their new headquarters to Minneapolis.

              Its a fools errand to believe there is much difference of polititcs in DC.

              1. You’re now changing the goalposts.

                Why would pro-Trump Republicans move to disqualify Trump?

                The OG point was that the effort to disqualify is NOT, as Turley wrote, just a Democratic Party cause.

                You asked for Republicans who have supported the litigation efforts to disqualify… And then I responded with this.

                Now, you want to argue that only pro-Trump Republicans are valid Republicans? Come on man.

            2. “Castro entered politics seeking the Democratic Party nomination for Webb County Court of Commissioners in 2004, receiving less than 500 votes and coming in last.” wiki

              RINO

            3. “In 2022, Castro launched a run for President of the United States as a Republican in the 2024 United States presidential election.[32][33][34][35] According to Castro, he decided to run for president instead of “becoming a billionaire.”[20] ”

              “Soon after he registered to run, Castro began to file lawsuits to try to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election, promoting his legal efforts with posts to social media like “they finally realized I’m not fu**ing around. Too late, beta boys.”

  5. It appears the Democratic Party wants to become our “Monarchy” once again and crown whoever they decide to be King!

    1. Yet another dishonest Turley post ….

      No its not

      Maybe one day, though not tomorrow, you will engage the frontal lobe of your brain, stimulate physiological neurocognitive pathways, and dialogue with others at an IQ > 100. You could do so incrementally: first IQ of 80, then 90, etc. NB: Mental Retardation IQ < 70

      But alas, that does not look likely given your trolling this forum with your incessant, pathological need for attention, armies of sockpuppets and otherwise a reminder of defective minds in our civilization. You add nothing to this forum that anyone esteems.

  8. We have a number of friends here who will vote for anyone so long as he or she is a Democrat. They are called “Yellow Dog Democrats” because, yes, they even would vote for a Yellow Dog. In their minds, only Democrats are true Americans, looking out for the country and the little guy. Of course it is fiction. If questioned about their commitment to Democrats, it quickly becomes apparent that they are voting for a party that has not existed for a very long time if it ever did. Civil rights? We Republicans should be embarrassed that we had Strom Thurmond, but Democrats had George Wallace and Bull Connor. Remember Bull Connor? He was a member of the Democrat National Committee. Southern Democrats did all they could to block civil rights, and Johnson was sold on it only when he realized that he would secure the black vote for “200 years.” Peace makers? Remember Vietnam? Only Nixon/ Kissinger worked tirelessly to get us out of that morass. Regrettably we had George W. Bush but Biden has far surpassed him in war-making. Defender of Democracy? Remember Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff et al and Russian collusion among many other attempts to destroy the Presidency for whom half the country had voted. National security? See the invasion from the south brought to us by Democrats, flooding our country with 6 to 10 million unvetted illegals, not to mention the depletion of our oil reserves and ruination of the energy industry, and turning our military into a woke training ground. I could go on and on but hopefully the next time people pledge their undying allegiance to the Democrat party, they will be reminded exactly who and what they are voting for.

    1. Honestlawyermostly,
      In the past I commented on how actor Kevin Costner once wore a tee-shirt that said, “Nation before party.”
      He was correct but not in the way he thought he was.
      When a party no longer represents their voters, it is within the right of the voters to vote for someone whom does. This blind loyalty to party is moronic, by both parties.
      Fortunately many Blacks, Hispanics and Asians all see the woke leftism that has gripped the Democrat party for what it is: Insane and stupid.
      Long time Democrats like Bill Maher, Elon Musk, James Carville and the good professor all have said the same or just point out the insanity, the corruption, the stupid.
      Some Jews are now also questioning their voting habits as more and more anti-semetic activity spreads across cities and college campuses.
      Unfortunately for us, the Democrat party is doing everything in their powers to end democracy, end free speech and force their one party rule.

  9. The belief that the 2020 election was stolen is based on 3 minor facts. Three were no forensic audits and Risk Limited Audits were a sham. No court permitted a challenge to the results dismissing the cases on various specious procedural grounds like lack of standing and not one holding an evidentiary hearing. Finally on Jan 6th Congress in the process of constitutionally delaying the electoral count having both a member of the House and Senate jointly put forward the motion when congress was abruptly adjourned. When Pelosi reconvened the congress under Emergency provisions the only vote allowed was confirmation of Biden, the early motion on the floor was ignored as if it never happened. This final little inconsequential fact means the INSURRECTION and subsequent Emergency reconvening (silent). Benefited the Democratic Party only and the victims were the American people and President Donald Trump.

    1. This is the reason Pelosi refused to allow the National Presence. This is the Reason there where 100’s of govt paid informants, and agents from half a dozen agencies undercover in the crowd. Not to keep the peace, but to start a riot. Using Flash bang concussive grenades in the Capital.
      Pelosi had to derail the process of constitutionally delaying the electoral count having both a member of the House and Senate jointly put forward the motion.
      We know the Jan 6 committee, populated 100% by the Democrat Speaker of the House, was a shame. Learning last week dozens of interviews have been destroyed. Evidence proving the lack of coordinated insurrection.

  10. All autocratic persons, and dictatorial regimes, profess to working for restoration of stolen glory of a peoples, even if imaginary; punishing treachery against the nation; or protecting a beleagured minority. It’s pretty standard rhetoric and a reliable guide to trouble ahead. What comes first, the noble sounding cause, or the evil intent?

  11. The Left-Wing Radical DEMS have taken over and the middle of the road DEMS sit silent. They are The Fascist Party, Totalitarian party. They listen to the Left-wing Dem Legal Braintrust of Larence Tribe. They are a corrupt party, The Elites seek as much $$$$ and power as they can get, and the rest get crumbs. Hopefully they lose power and the Republicans take control and then the Center Dem’s evict the Left Wing Facist out.

    1. Then go to Vegas and put your money where your mouth is. You’ll get favorable odds

  13. I’ll say it again, if the RNC doesn’t police the mail in ballot system it will not matter who the Republican candidate is, Biden will win.

  14. It appears that at the recent Kennedy Center Honors, earlier at a WH reception for the honorees, Biden joked that honoree Billy Crystal, ‘promised me he’s not going to primary me – because he would win.’
    While he may have meant it as a joke, 2 out of 3 Democrats would likely vote for Crystal . . . if they had a fair, democratic party.

  15. Democrats have long ago decided that “Saving Democracy” will be their battle cry for the 2024 election. And their obedient little minions at MSNBC, CNN, and NBC are dutifully chiming in as ordered and will continue to do so for the next 12 months. Amazing the line of b###$@t you can pull of when the mainstream media is carrying water for you. Honestly, they’re so effective they could probably get most Democrats to believe the moon is made of cheese if they just kept repeating the refrain every day. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

    1. “Saving OUR Democracy” which transparently means uni-party control of DC, the favor factory and the money machine.

  16. Go look at video recorded in 1984 and features former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov explaining/predicting what we’re seeing in present day America. China BACKS the WORST Democrat entities

  17. When people tell you or by their actions that they are fascists, believe them.

  19. Jon… you are finally getting it…the Democrat Party is a FASCIST entity. We need to have a Nuremberg Trial and jail thousands of criminal Democrat from across government…who ARE FIGHTING A CIVIL WAR AGAINST AMERICA! Let start with every single person involved in the Russian Hoax…including Reporters, FBI, CIA, Congress, etc. Then every person with these absurd indictments of Trump and EVERY PERSON AROUND HIM! Then the people protecting of criminals like Menendez, Bidens, Pelosis, etc Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, etc JAIL…FOR LIFE for OPEN TREASON! Then on to Clintons, Kerry, McConnell(Rino), Gramham(Rino), children of these criminals like Hunter, Romney, etc who make MONEY SELLING OUR Government!

    You laughable take well meaning republicans to task…while Democrats have since Obama’s election been OPEN FASCISTS!

    The Democrat Party should be Destroyed…two Civil Wars is TWO TOO MANY!
    This is a war of GOOD against EVIL. Democrats today are open racists against WHITES, they twist the minds of children to BELIEVE a boy can CHANGE TO A GIRL or just PRETEND TO BE ONE…and I get ARRESTED if I don’t BELIEVE! They push Drugs, rap, illegals etc to DESTROY America!
    The Democrat Party is BACKED by people attempting to Destroy the USA and the West!
    Oh by the way…50% cut of Fed Spending…and end all federal aid to cities, states and colleges…and 90% of non-profits. Let Democrats FUND THEIR Failure..well till the PARTY IS ELIMINATED!

Comments are closed.