The Hawaii episode has become an important flashpoint as prosecutors scrutinize whether the pro-Trump electors broke any laws. Justice Department leaders say the matter is under investigation, and several Democratic secretaries of state and attorneys general have similarly raised the specter of crimes like mail or election fraud. The Jan. 6 select committee is probing the false electors for evidence of coordination with the Trump campaign or White House.

While Republicans have used the incident to justify the actions of Trump’s illegitimate electors for the past year, POLITICO has newly obtained records that shed light on those claims.

The Hawaii documents

Until now, it’s been unclear whether the 1960 case of the Kennedy electors was truly analogous to 2020 Trump electors. But the unofficial Democratic certificates, obtained by POLITICO from the non-digitized files of the National Archives, show the three Kennedy electors signed documents that are remarkably similar to the false Trump-elector certificates.

The certificates describe the three Democrats as the “duly and legally appointed and qualified” members of the Electoral College. The envelope containing the certificates, stamped Dec. 22, 1960, includes another avowal: “We hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for president … are contained herein.” The documents do not mention the ongoing recount or that Nixon’s Hawaii victory had been certified.

Instead, the Hawaii Democrats used virtually the same language that the false Trump electors in five states used in their effort to upend the 2020 race. In those documents — from Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia — the pro-Turmp activists described themselves as “duly elected and qualified.” In two other states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Trump allies submitted alternative elector slates but included a caveat: their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles broke in favor of Trump.

Charlie Gerow, a veteran Pennsylvania Republican strategist who signed one of the pro-Trump elector certificates, said he and several other electors who were lawyers devised the strategy to include a caveat.

“We put in the contingent language quite bluntly because I and several others in the room who were lawyers insisted upon it,” said Gerow, who is currently running for governor. “We inserted that language specifically to avoid some of the charges that are coming from the left.”

Gerow said the Trump allies met at the offices of his firm, Quantum Communications, to sign the Pennsylvania certificates. At that time, several of Trump’s long shot court challenges were still pending, he noted, and the Trump electors in those states wanted to be ready in the off-chance a court handed Trump a win.

Why Hawaii 1960 isn't the same as Trump 2020

Although the three Democratic electors in Hawaii took the same action — signing false certificates — it does not appear they ever faced similar scrutiny, in part because of what happened next. Namely, that Hawaii’s recount ultimately did reverse the state’s election outcome.

Kennedy prevailed by an eyelash when the recount concluded on Dec. 28, 1960. A newly sworn-in governor certified the Kennedy victory and transmitted a new slate of Electoral College certificates — signed by the same three Democrats who falsely claimed to have won two weeks earlier.

When Nixon, like Mike Pence, presided over the Electoral College counting session on Jan. 6, 1961, he acknowledged receiving all three sets of certificates: the GOP slate, the uncertified Democratic slate and the certified Democratic slate.

He then agreed that the newest one — the Democrats certified by Gov. William Quinn — should be counted, even though they were certified weeks after the required meeting of the Electoral College. Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future.

That newest slate “properly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the electors chosen by the people of Hawaii,” Nixon said.

One crucial feature of the 1960 episode is that a state court weighed in on Jan. 4, 1961, two days before Nixon oversaw the electoral vote count.

In that case, Judge Ronald Jamieson agreed that the certified Kennedy electors were legitimate. But, more significantly, Jamieson said it was important that those electors met and gathered on Dec. 19, 1960, as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act.

Rather than suggest the Democratic electors committed fraud, the judge pointed to their meeting as a key step that preserved their ability to be counted after the recount showed Kennedy had actually won the state. Jamieson also reportedly threw out an effort by the GOP electors to scrap the entire election because of fraud allegations.

The ruling wasn’t appealed and holds no binding weight, but it’s the only legal precedent for dueling Electoral College slates since the Electoral Count Act passed in 1887.