Dems fear Mike Johnson has laid the groundwork for a nightmare scenario on Jan. 6, 2025
By Matt Laslo,
5 hours ago
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House visits the New York Stock Exchange to deliver an economic address in New York City, U.S., October 1, 2024. REUTERS/Kent J. Edwards
WASHINGTON — Democrats are bracing for Jan. 6, 2025, which is why many are making post-election security a central plank in their pitch to voters ahead of November’s elections.
Even before vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance refused to say if he would have certified the 2020 election in this week’s debate, Democrats on Capitol Hill were raising concerns that House Speaker Mike Johnson could, once again, try to interfere with the election results.
“Have you thought much about Jan. 6, 2025?” Raw Story asked at the Capitol.
“It won't be good,” Cohen said while exiting the Capitol. “But I think we'll have a new speaker by then.”
During the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House, but if Republicans maintain their majority this fall, Speaker Johnson—or his party’s choice to replace him—will oversee the House on Jan. 6, 2025.
While reclaiming the gavels and the power that comes with being the majority in the House of Representatives is Democrat’s top concern this cycle, many in the party are increasingly raising concerns about the specter of Speaker Johnson being in charge during the official counting of the Electoral College results in the House.
Raskin says Democrats must win and then “defend the election”
That’s why Democrats are braced, according to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).
“Are you worried about a Bush v Gore redux?” Raw Story asked Raskin about the 2000 Supreme Court case that tilted the election to former President George W. Bush.
“Democrats have two main objectives,” Raskin told Raw Story on the Capitol steps in September. “One is to go out and win the election, and the second is to defend the election.”
Before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan publicly unsealed the latest court filing from special counsel Jack Smith this week, Trump was looking impenetrable from the nation’s courts, according to Raskin.
The constitutional lawyer says the Supreme Court’s pro-Trump rulings on three pivotal Jan. 6 cases have likely only emboldened the former president.
“We understand that Donald Trump thinks he's on a winning streak in the Supreme Court,” Raskin said. “The justices he named overturned abortion rights in Roe v. Wade . They pulled a rabbit out of a hat and invented a new doctrine of presidential immunity from prosecution. And undoubtedly, he thinks that the Supreme Court will save him from the fact that he doesn't have anything remotely resembling a real presidential campaign.”
Speaker Johnson pushing “delusional” claims in 2024
After the attack on the Capitol three years ago, a bipartisan coalition updated the 1887 Electoral Count Act. Lawmakers spelled out that the vice president can’t reject electors sent to Congress by the states because their role presiding over the proceedings is “solely ministerial.”
Now, one-fifth of Congress—in both the House and Senate—would need to agree before an objection to state electors can be heard. The changes were hard fought but didn't go as far as many progressives wanted. Select Jan. 6 committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) says that extra buffer is important.
“As you know, we did revise the Electoral Count Act to prevent mischief,” Lofgren told Raw Story while walking to the Capitol last month. “But all laws envision people abiding by them.”
“So, are you nervous?” Raw Story pressed.
“I don't want to say ‘nervous.’ I am mindful the majority of the Republicans voted to overturn the election — destroying the fabric of the American constitutional system,” Lofgren said.
In 2021, some six hours after the Capitol was stormed, 147 Republicans — including now-Speaker Johnson — voted to object to the legitimate slate of electors Pennsylvania sent to Washington.
But even before the failed insurrection, Johnson — a constitutional lawyer by training — wrote a brief Trump and other Republicans used to bolster their false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
Heading into November’s election, critics fear Trump and Johnson are already laying the groundwork for a challenge by pushing falsehoods about noncitizens voting.
“Which is obviously delusional,” Lofgren said. “Well, let's just say the law is clear, and I'm prepared to vote to certify the winner, whomever it is.”
“What you swore an oath to do,” Raw Story said.
“That’s exactly right,” Lofgren replied.
A handful of Republicans have already vowed to join Democrats in certifying whoever wins in November. While many of them have also raised concerns about the integrity of American elections, these Republicans are also seen as a counterweight to Trump and Johnson’s claims about election interference.
“It does happen, but the reality, over the long haul, is that our elections are secure,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) told a gaggle of reporters on the Capitol steps a couple of weeks ago.
Like most elected Republicans these days, Lawler still claims there were “issues in certain states” with the results in 2020. Still, in September, Lawler joined a bipartisan coalition of “31 Members in launching new unity commitment to respect election results.”
“At the end of the day, this will be determined by the American people,” Lawler confidently predicted of November’s election results, despite the rhetoric from his fellow Republicans.
“Then you just have to hope and pray…”
There’s broad agreement that the security situation in the nation’s capital will be stouter on Jan. 6, 2025, than it was in 2021, which gives Democrats some solace.
“My sense is that Capitol Police would be much better prepared,” former ambassador Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) told Raw Story at the Capitol recently. “The National Guard would be on standby, and we won't have a Pentagon that says, ‘don't go.’”
Still, like many of his Democratic colleagues, Beyer’s on guard against Republican interference.
“It's a very real worry,” Beyer said. “Then you just have to hope and pray that a lifetime of education of American values and history kicks in and they don't ignore the Constitution and the law.”
“Do you have faith in that after last time?” Raw Story pressed.
“There were many disappointments last time. The big disappointment was after the assault and so many voted not to certify. It was very discouraging, just in terms of their love of country,” Beyer told Raw Story. “Walking away from the fundamental constitutional structure of the country, that's corrosive. That's power for power's sake.”
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Local News
