The aftermath of the 1972 election, plus another pretty good part for Leonard Nimoy. The 1972 election aftermath is similar to the 2000 election aftermath IRL, just in reverse, because Nixon fears that the Democrats will investigate him for Watergate and the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos upon leaving office.
NIXON LAWSUIT OVER CALIFORNIA ELECTION REACHES SUPREME COURT
December 1, 1972
President Nixon has argued that the California election should be ruled invalid, and a new election called, citing irregularities in the counts in parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Nixon v. Muskie will be heard by the Supreme Court in an emergency hearing on Monday. Last month, President-elect Muskie won California after two days of suspense, by 2,515 votes out of over 8 million cast in the country's largest state. President Nixon is arguing that Democrats stuffed the ballot boxes in black precincts in Los Angeles and Asian precincts in San Francisco, and is seeking injunctive relief. "We have evidence that the processes governing the election in California were corrupt, that President Nixon won the state and reelection, and we will present it in front of the Supreme Court," said John Mitchell, President Nixon's chairman of his reelection campaign and former Attorney General. It is unlikely that President Nixon will succeed in the courts, as no court has ever overruled an election. The closest scenario in American history to the 1972 election result was all the way back in 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes was given the Presidency in exchange for removing federal troops from the South to end Reconstruction, but Mitchell accepts that a reversal of the results is unlikely. "We'll try, but I cannot see the Supreme Court changing the result," Mitchell said.
SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF MUSKIE IN ELECTION CASE
December 8, 1972
After three days of arguments in front of the Supreme Court, the court found that President Nixon's arguments over election fraud in California had no standing, and that President-elect Muskie was duly elected. By a 7-2 margin, the Court determined in Nixon v. Muskie that California's election processes were legal. Chief Justice Burger, writing the majority opinion for the seven justices, found that "President Nixon's lawyer, John Mitchell, presented specious and circumstantial evidence of election irregularities that did not nearly stand the test of scrutiny required for a second, replacement election to be held in the state of California." Joining Justice Burger in the majority were Associate Justices Harry Blackmun, William Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis Powell. Dissenting were Byron White and William Rehnquist. In his dissent, Rehnquist argued that "President Nixon's lawyer presented compelling evidence. We have the records that certain precincts in California had more than 100% of the registered voters cast ballots in various precincts in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and most of those extra votes were for candidate Muskie." Thus ends perhaps the most dramatic election in our lifetimes, at least going back to the election of 1916 for some of our older readers, which ironically, was also decided in California in favor of a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
PRESIDENT-ELECT MUSKIE TO CONGRESS: DO NOT RELITIGATE NIXON ADMINISTRATION
December 11, 1972
President-elect Muskie pleaded with some of the more liberal members of the House and Senate, where Democrats hold a majority, not to open investigations into President Nixon's conduct over Watergate and his conduct in prosecuting the Vietnam War. "The President-elect prefers to engage in his domestic policy, since we are entering a recession, and to continue monitoring the situation in Vietnam, which seems to have no end in sight," said Muskie chief of staff Leon Billings. "We believe that President Nixon received a just form of punishment for his behavior: an electoral defeat." Some younger members of the House, such as Charles Rangel, representing a Harlem district in New York City, and Ron Dellums of California, are demanding Speaker of the House Morris Udall fully review the Watergate break-in this past June, arguing that President Nixon led a coverup in an attempted circumvention of the American political system. In the Senate, Alaska senator Mike Gravel agrees with his younger House colleagues, and is planning to ask Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Edward Kennedy to open probes into President Nixon's behavior in Cambodia and Laos, which he considers an illegal expansion of the war in Southeast Asia. Gravel is reportedly so upset with President Nixon's conduct that he is asking to refer both the Watergate break-in and the Cambodia-Laos interventions to the Department of Justice for possible criminal investigation.
NIMOY INTERESTED IN PARAMOUNT GREAT GATSBY PRODUCTION, OTHER PROJECTS
December 22, 1972
Leonard Nimoy, the last man to win Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards, is looking to branch out into more film work. He reportedly wants to play roles in two potential Paramount Pictures future releases: The Great Gatsby and a potential Godfather sequel. Nimoy's agent told Variety, "Leonard is extremely happy to continue working in both feature films and television. However, with Mission: Impossible's run seemingly winding down, it appears that my client will be working more in films. Leonard has a good relationship with Paramount and would like to make movies under that banner." Nimoy won last April for his portrayal of Motel Kamozil in Fiddler on the Roof, which surprised many observers, but he has been largely quiet since them, only preferring occasional television work. "Leonard needed some time off with his family. He took a vacation to Hawaii and recharged his batteries after over five years of practically nonstop work on Star Trek, Mission: Impossible, and Fiddler," his agent said. "At some point, he would like to play Tevye, either on Broadway or in another Fiddler movie, because he has not gotten the chance to do so yet, and he feels that he honored his parents with the performances."