Guest Commentary By Sam Nevarez | Political Strategist
You cannot spend years insisting that an election was stolen and then shut the door on independent witnesses to the next one. That is the contradiction Donald Trump now owes Americans an explanation for.
I am a political strategist who lives here in Texas’s 3rd Congressional District. I do not feel comfortable knowing we turned away election observers, because it raises the obvious question: what is there to hide?
A Break From Two Decades of Election Observation
His administration has declined to invite election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to the upcoming midterms, breaking a practice followed in U.S. federal elections since 2002, including during his first administration.
For a president who has made election integrity his calling card, this is a remarkable choice. America has spent decades urging other nations to open their elections to independent observers. Now we are refusing to let them watch ours.
Why are we lowering our standards instead of demonstrating them?
The Standard Trump Set After 2020
The contradiction reaches back to 2020. Trump falsely claimed the election was stolen, yet his own attorney general, William Barr, said the Justice Department found no evidence of fraud on a scale that could have changed the outcome, and election-security officials rejected claims that voting systems deleted or changed votes.
Now the president who demanded that Americans question the results is turning away the people who could independently examine the next election. You do not get to demand scrutiny when you lose and retreat from it when you hold power. That is not election integrity, it is a double standard.
Sovereignty Is Not the Same as Secrecy
To be fair, there is a reasonable version of the administration’s position: American elections are run by the states, and no foreign body has authority over them. Sovereignty is a real principle. But this particular president spent years telling Americans their own elections could not be trusted. He does not get to demand scrutiny from everyone else and refuse it himself.
International observers do not run our elections. They watch, they report, and American officials remain in charge. They are witnesses, not rulers. Welcoming them does not surrender our sovereignty. It demonstrates confidence in our institutions.
In fact, the OSCE observed the 2024 election that returned Trump to the presidency, describing it as “well-run” and saying candidates campaigned “freely across the country.” The organization was not hostile to Trump when it assessed the election he won. So why is its presence unacceptable now?
Federal Monitors Are Not Independent Observers
Meanwhile, the administration is preparing to deploy roughly 1,000 federal election monitors of its own. Federal monitoring can serve legitimate purposes, but monitors operating under the administration’s authority are no substitute for independent observation. Americans deserve clear rules, protection against intimidation, and scrutiny that does not all answer to the same leadership, because the government’s job is to protect the voter, not to protect itself from questions.
Let’s also be disciplined about the facts: refusing observers does not prove an election will be rigged, and we should not answer unsupported allegations with unsupported allegations of our own. But this decision does remove an established source of independent assessment. The OSCE called it “regrettable” and inconsistent with U.S. commitments, and that alone deserves accountability.
And the standard must apply to both parties. A Democratic president making this decision would deserve the same criticism. Transparency is not a favor politicians grant when it suits them. It is an obligation that comes with power.
If the Election Is Secure, Let Them Watch
If the election is secure, let observers document it. If there are weaknesses, let us confront them; if their conclusions are wrong, challenge their evidence. But do not close the door and call that confidence. I do not distrust the outcome in advance. I want a reason to trust it. The administration should invite the observers back. Americans deserve more than “trust us.” They deserve a process that withstands scrutiny and leaders willing to face it. If you trust the election, let them watch.
Sources
Editor’s note: Sam Nevarez is a political strategist with professional ties to campaigns in the North Texas area. This commentary was submitted in his personal capacity and reflects his own views. Publication does not constitute an endorsement by TX3DNews. Guest commentary submissions are welcome regardless of candidacy or party affiliation and may be sent to contact@tx3dnews.com.
Related
If You Trust the Election, Let Them Watch
Guest Commentary By Sam Nevarez | Political Strategist
You cannot spend years insisting that an election was stolen and then shut the door on independent witnesses to the next one. That is the contradiction Donald Trump now owes Americans an explanation for.
I am a political strategist who lives here in Texas’s 3rd Congressional District. I do not feel comfortable knowing we turned away election observers, because it raises the obvious question: what is there to hide?
A Break From Two Decades of Election Observation
His administration has declined to invite election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to the upcoming midterms, breaking a practice followed in U.S. federal elections since 2002, including during his first administration.
For a president who has made election integrity his calling card, this is a remarkable choice. America has spent decades urging other nations to open their elections to independent observers. Now we are refusing to let them watch ours.
Why are we lowering our standards instead of demonstrating them?
The Standard Trump Set After 2020
The contradiction reaches back to 2020. Trump falsely claimed the election was stolen, yet his own attorney general, William Barr, said the Justice Department found no evidence of fraud on a scale that could have changed the outcome, and election-security officials rejected claims that voting systems deleted or changed votes.
Now the president who demanded that Americans question the results is turning away the people who could independently examine the next election. You do not get to demand scrutiny when you lose and retreat from it when you hold power. That is not election integrity, it is a double standard.
Sovereignty Is Not the Same as Secrecy
To be fair, there is a reasonable version of the administration’s position: American elections are run by the states, and no foreign body has authority over them. Sovereignty is a real principle. But this particular president spent years telling Americans their own elections could not be trusted. He does not get to demand scrutiny from everyone else and refuse it himself.
International observers do not run our elections. They watch, they report, and American officials remain in charge. They are witnesses, not rulers. Welcoming them does not surrender our sovereignty. It demonstrates confidence in our institutions.
In fact, the OSCE observed the 2024 election that returned Trump to the presidency, describing it as “well-run” and saying candidates campaigned “freely across the country.” The organization was not hostile to Trump when it assessed the election he won. So why is its presence unacceptable now?
Federal Monitors Are Not Independent Observers
Meanwhile, the administration is preparing to deploy roughly 1,000 federal election monitors of its own. Federal monitoring can serve legitimate purposes, but monitors operating under the administration’s authority are no substitute for independent observation. Americans deserve clear rules, protection against intimidation, and scrutiny that does not all answer to the same leadership, because the government’s job is to protect the voter, not to protect itself from questions.
Let’s also be disciplined about the facts: refusing observers does not prove an election will be rigged, and we should not answer unsupported allegations with unsupported allegations of our own. But this decision does remove an established source of independent assessment. The OSCE called it “regrettable” and inconsistent with U.S. commitments, and that alone deserves accountability.
And the standard must apply to both parties. A Democratic president making this decision would deserve the same criticism. Transparency is not a favor politicians grant when it suits them. It is an obligation that comes with power.
If the Election Is Secure, Let Them Watch
If the election is secure, let observers document it. If there are weaknesses, let us confront them; if their conclusions are wrong, challenge their evidence. But do not close the door and call that confidence. I do not distrust the outcome in advance. I want a reason to trust it. The administration should invite the observers back. Americans deserve more than “trust us.” They deserve a process that withstands scrutiny and leaders willing to face it. If you trust the election, let them watch.
Sources
Editor’s note: Sam Nevarez is a political strategist with professional ties to campaigns in the North Texas area. This commentary was submitted in his personal capacity and reflects his own views. Publication does not constitute an endorsement by TX3DNews. Guest commentary submissions are welcome regardless of candidacy or party affiliation and may be sent to contact@tx3dnews.com.
Share this:
Like this:
Related