A Secret Impeachment Vote Can And Should Be Held

#315: Yes, It Can Be Done

............................

In December of 2019 I wrote in detail about the case for reclaiming the Senate's mystique.   To wit: senators used to be highly-regarded gentlemen, trusted to express themselves in relative anonymity.  Now, our senators have thousands of voters following every little thing about their lives.   Plus, there are 'enforcer' -types letting each senator know if they're out of line, even threatening their safety should they depart from party orthodoxy.

The upcoming impeachment trial of former president Trump in February presents us with a chance to revisit my case for secrecy.  In light of the mob action at the Capitol on January 6th, it may be that disarming 'enforcers' is now a necessity.  

First, there's nothing in the Constitution stopping the Senate from a secret ballot.  If every member is on the record (literally, on the record) declaring how they voted, the Constitution's conditions have been met.  In addition, a secret, paper ballot could also be cast and take precedence.  Then, anyone wanting to examine those ballots could recount them as many times as they wished.  That some senators would vote one way in secret, and one way in public would be their choice to make.  And this could all take place via a transparent, live feed from the Senate floor.  My article, referred to above, provides additional details (for example: each senator receives two pieces of paper, 'Convict' and 'Acquit', which s/he then folds, and walking up, one-at-a-time to the presiding officer's chair, places one in the ballot box, and the other in the discard box, without disclosing contents, all this after voicing their vote).

Then there's the question of who would want this to happen.  My article addresses this as well.  In the present case, everybody except the accused should and likely would want a secret vote:

  * Republicans: Most would probably want Trump removed from politics--which would likely happen if he were convicted.  He's the poster child for 'damaged goods'.  Most mainstream Republicans would win their re-election contests if they didn't have to fear primary challengers whipped up by Trump's rhetorical threats.  Send Trump up the river and they're home free.

  * Democrats: A secret ballot vote that convicts (as it likely would), when compared to a voice vote that acquits (all but certain), would be even more embarrassing for Republicans than would simple acquittal.  That's because the only logical conclusion for a secret ballot conviction, coupled with voice vote acquittal, is that a certain percentage of Republicans were lying ("I can't believe 18 of my Republican colleagues voted to convict....", say all 45 recorded votes to acquit.")  Plus, Republican senators, now no longer as worried about primary challengers, would probably be slightly more cooperative in getting legislation passed.

  * The American People: Perhaps 5-10% of Republicans feel compelled to toe the line out of fear, when defending Trump ("I don't want to have to lie to my husband about how I voted").  The rest are hard core believers.  But those 5-10%, along with nearly two-thirds of voters (Democrats and a good many Independents) would, if they could vote secretly, toss Trump's sorry excuses aside.  It should be remembered that the basis of all justice is that misdeeds have consequences.  Denying justice only describes a path to crime for the next criminally inclined wrong-doer.

The only nay-sayer in all this, if the American People are counted in favor, at 66/33% or thereabouts, is Trump himself (and his hangers-on).  But all guilty parties in their right mind want to avoid justice, so this is not surprising.

But what about the argument that the Republican party is digging its own grave as it sticks with a disgraced president?  Wouldn't Democrats be smarter to let this play out?  The answer is surely 'no', since the more unlikely an ally Trump becomes, the more the tension there is in the Republican party between sanity and The Crazy.  Convicting Trump for inciting an insurrection--something many Republican senators would prefer to do, would be a minor, internalized embarrassment for those who lie about their vote, but would make them, and their country, stronger in the long term.

And, finally, what about the triumphant argument I've encountered online, that if, say, 20 Republicans vote to convict, it only takes 30 Republicans saying they voted to acquit to ID those 20 turncoats?  Obviously, some politicians are better liars than others, but lying indignation is easy when your political future is on the line.  All 50 (except the 4-5 who would publicly vote to convict) will say they aren't lying.