This year’s January 6 events are set to take a notably different turn compared to the chaotic scenes witnessed in 2021. Four years ago, then-President Donald Trump incited his supporters to rally at the Capitol in opposition to Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Trump even teased that the day would “be wild!” in a tweet shortly before the events unfolded, and it certainly turned out to be chaotic.
Following a confrontational speech from Trump that energized thousands of attendees at the Ellipse near the White House, many participants marched to the Capitol, ultimately breaching the building in an effort to disrupt the routine procedural confirmation of the presidential election results. Despite the violence and disruption, a significant number of Republican lawmakers—eight Senators and 139 House members—still voted against certifying Biden’s victory in swing states, despite a substantial lack of evidence substantiating claims of electoral fraud or misconduct.
In stark contrast, the current atmosphere leading up to this year’s electoral certification is characterized by relative calm, primarily overshadowed by internal conflicts among House Republicans over the speaker position. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) conveyed the sentiment quite clearly: “There will be no violence. There will be no attempt to mount an insurrection against the Constitution.” The mood this time resembles more of a conventional political process, akin to the historical precedents of American governance.
Unlike the last certification, when Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to intervene on his behalf, this year sees Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost to Biden, acknowledging her defeat. Harris is not expected to attempt any revisions to the well-established electoral certification processes, nor have other prominent Democratic figures suggested contesting Trump’s win following the November elections.
In the wake of the 2020 election turmoil, Congress took steps to revise the legislation dictating electoral procedures, clarifying the framework and defining the vice president’s role as primarily ceremonial. Despite unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud put forth by many Republicans following the 2020 election, trust in the voting process seemed to materialize once again after Trump’s recent victory, indicating a significant shift in party sentiment towards the electoral system.
Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University, remarked on the general willingness of citizens to embrace a smoother process: “As citizens, we should all be happy when it goes smoothly. It’s always better not to have major contestation over elections, especially when there isn’t a reasonable position for it.” However, some experts caution that a veneer of tranquility may hide deeper issues.
Though some Republicans signaled a readiness to contest results had Harris emerged victorious, no such significant disputes appear on the horizon for the current electoral certification. Vice President-elect JD Vance, during his Senate tenure, argued previously for Pence to act against Biden’s election confirmation. Vance is now poised to oversee the next pivotal January 6 event, which will be set for 2029, when electoral votes from the 2028 election are confirmed.
David Weinberg from Protect Democracy aptly stated, “The most dangerous January 6 event is not January 6, 2025. It’s January 6, 2029, and beyond,” emphasizing the risks of one party undermining democratic norms when they lose elections.
The constitutional framework for choosing a president has been bolstered by congressional legislation detailing the electoral process. Following the selections by the states on Election Day, electors from each state formally cast their votes as part of the Electoral College. Congress then counts these votes during a joint session on January 6, overseen by the vice president, to finalize the election outcome.
Back in 2021, Trump attempted to convince Pence to reject votes from key battleground states that Biden had won, a suggestion deemed unconstitutional by Pence and several legal authorities. In response, a year later, Biden enacted bipartisan legislation clarifying the vice president’s obligation to announce all state tallies and imposing stricter regulations on contesting congressional votes. Despite these attempts, opposition remains among some House Republicans.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a notable supporter of Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 results, has not dismissed the possibility of altering the election outcome if things don’t favor Trump in November. Throughout the concluding weeks of the election cycle, Republican representatives argued that Democrats would deploy similar tactics should Trump prevail, referring to initiatives aimed at disqualifying Trump under an obscure constitutional clause related to insurrection that was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court.
Republicans contend that the decisive nature of Trump’s recent victory—by approximately 230,000 votes in swing states and a popular vote margin of 1.5 percentage points—contributes to an absence of unrest this time. Arizona Representative Andy Biggs, who previously led objections to the certifications, asserted, “This time, I think the win was so decisive that it just — for good or ill depending on which side you’re on — it’s stifled most of that.”
Foley, author of “Ballot Battles,” remains optimistic about the future. He anticipates that the upcoming 2024 election will not see a resurgence of unfounded challenges to the congressional certification process, especially as Trump is constitutionally ineligible for a third term. Foley noted that previous Republican attempts to mimic Trump’s skepticism towards election integrity largely failed in swing states during the 2022 elections.
He reflected, “As Trump will never be a candidate again, I hope this is beyond us.”
