Attorney Alan Dershowitz highlighted historical examples of alternate electors during a recent episode of The Dershow. He argued that the use of alternate electors in contested elections, including Al Gore’s 2000 Florida challenge and the 1960 presidential election in Hawaii, raises questions about recent criminal charges against Donald Trump and his legal team for their efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.
Dershowitz noted that the strategy of preparing alternate slates of electors has been used in past disputes without legal consequences. He specifically referenced the 1960 presidential election between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, where alternate electors were presented in Hawaii as the vote count remained in dispute. Similarly, he recounted his involvement in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, explaining that Al Gore’s legal team had a contingency plan involving alternate electors had the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.
The veteran attorney questioned how the use of alternate electors, historically seen as a legal mechanism in disputed elections, could now be considered a crime. He specifically addressed the indictments brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special counsel Jack Smith against Trump and his associates.
According to Dershowitz, the Pennsylvania election processes in 2020, where votes were counted after polls closed in apparent defiance of state legislature rules, could have been challenged successfully in court. He suggested that if a court had ruled in favor of such challenges, the existence of alternate electors would have been necessary to ensure proper representation in the Electoral College.
Dershowitz also cited the controversial 1876 Tilden-Hayes election, where multiple states submitted competing slates of electors, resulting in a negotiated resolution. He emphasized the historical and constitutional precedent for such practices, framing the criminalization of similar actions in 2020 as unprecedented.
The discussion raises questions about the consistency of legal interpretations surrounding election challenges. Dershowitz’s comments add to ongoing debates about the role of law in addressing contested elections, highlighting the tension between historical practices and modern political scrutiny.
