Attorney lays out game plan to make election denial cost-prohibitive

Four years after the 2020 presidential race, former President Donald Trump and many other MAGA Republicans continue to make the false claim that the election was stolen from him. Moreover, some of the Republicans in Congress who have endorsed Trump in the 2024 election — including Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — have not committed to accepting the election results if incumbent President Joe Biden wins.

In an article published by The New Republic on May 24, attorney Burton D. Sheppard warns that MAGA election denialism is not only a recipe for political violence and unrest — it also costs taxpayers "millions of dollars" because of frivolous lawsuits and other things. And he lays out a game plan for making election denial cost-prohibitive.

"Trump's refusal to accept that he lost cost him and his allies nothing," Sheppard explains. "Yet as early as February 6, 2021, according to The Washington Post, election deniers had already cost all levels of government — are you ready for this? — an estimated $519 million. The costs included massive legal fees, enhanced security costs, repairs to the damaged Capitol, massing of National Guard troops, and more."

READ MORE:'Deeply alarming' report finds almost one-third of Congress are 'election deniers'

The attorney adds, "The result, the Post reported, was that in just the first month after the insurrection, costs 'have mounted daily as government agencies at all levels have been forced to devote public funds to respond to actions taken by Trump and his supporters.' Some costs were borne by states."

Sheppard notes that because election denial has cost taxpayers "many millions of dollars," laws must be "changed to impede prospective election deniers if they lose in November." And the attorney recommends that state legislatures "require candidates to sign binding pledges, under penalties of perjury, that they will accept the declared, official election results after challenges, recounts, litigation, and so on."

"For candidates who agree to sign the pledge," Sheppard recommends, "that's the end of it. But candidates who do not sign the pledge within a certain reasonable time frame will be forced, under these new laws, to put down a deposit. These deposits should be substantial. They will vary from office to office: A Senate candidate should have to put down more than a state legislative candidate. Also, they'll vary from state to state: Candidates in expensive states like Florida will put down more than candidates in Vermont. But in every case, the amount should pinch — it needs to be big enough to encourage all candidates to sign."

The attorney adds, "The deposits will be held in escrow by state treasurers. Then, the law would impose a deadline for candidates to decide to sign the pledge — ideally, two weeks before Election Day. If they sign the pledge by that deadline, their deposit is returned to them and they can spend it trying to get elected. Thus, candidates are highly incentivized to sign — and agree to the democratic outcome. But those candidates who still hold out and don't sign? The state keeps their deposits."

READ MORE:'Partisan insurrectionist': Calls mount for Alito's ouster after 'Stop the Steal' scandal

Read Burton D. Sheppard'sfull New Republic article at this link.