Election day is here, and if there is one fact that remains unchanged, it is that this election will be close in both popular and electoral votes. However, even though the nation does not yet know the outcome of this election, top Grand Old Party members in both the House and Senate have already begun plotting war against Hillary Clinton if she is elected the 45th president of the United States.

Since February, the Supreme Court has had an even number vacancy with the seat of former Justice, Antonin Scalia. For months, Republicans in the Senate have said they will not vote to confirm, or even meet, Obama’s candidate, Judge Merrick Garland, because it is unfair to vote for a candidate nominated during what Republicans incorrectly perceive as a “lame duck” presidency. In this, the GOP destroyed years of precedence where Senators have always at least voted on a Supreme Court nomination. This break from precedent, unfortunately, does not end here.

On Oct. 27, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), raised the idea of an indefinite Supreme Court Republican blockade upon the Senate. When asked about the Supreme Court vacancy, Cruz stated, “There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue; there is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices; just recently Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.” Yet Cruz is wrong in stating that this vacancy follows precedent.

While we have had fewer Justices in the court in the past, their vacancies have never been formed by refusing to even consider a president’s nominee. The most recent president to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year was Ronald Reagan. In 1988, the Democratically controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Reagan’s nominee to the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Even as Democrats controlled the Senate, they followed the guidelines of the Constitution, not partisanship, and allowed for a vote on a Republican president’s Supreme Court nomination.

Cruz seems to suggest he is willfully encouraging constitutional dysfunction into the new presidency and Congress. Cruz is not merely suggesting he will oppose a nominee submitted by Clinton, but he is stating that if there is a Democratic president, he believes the Senate should just not act. This is an obvious response from a senator who was the chief architect of the 2013 government shutdown. Yet, this takes a step further as this is a clear violation of the oath he took as senator when first in office, in which he pledged to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”

While Ted Cruz may represent an extreme part of the GOP, his obstructionism to a possible Democratic presidency is not an anomaly. 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain has stated multiple times that he will not confirm a nominee by Clinton. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said during a radio interview with 1210 WPHT Philadelphia. We must not allow this partisan obstructionism. The election of our president, regardless of who wins, represents the voice and direction of this nation. That voice should not be disregarded; rather, it should be embraced by those who supposedly represent us.

This form of obstructionism is recurring for the GOP, specifically under an Obama presidency. For instance, it has been a national tradition for the president to send his budget to Congress, and lawmakers on the Hill hold committee hearings on this budget — except for this year. The chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced on March 11, for the first time since the creation of the panels more than 40 years ago, that they would not have hearings on the president’s budget or allow administration officials to testify. They decided this before President Obama released his budget, refusing to pass anything from a Democratic president. This is one of many recent tactics by GOP members to obstruct progress through partisanship by refusing to pass any legislation.

However, this obstructionist strategy is apparent on a wide array of issues. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) claimed a Clinton presidency is a “target rich environment.” In an Oct. 26 interview with the Washington Post, the GOP member said, “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.” His attitude towards Clinton appears more like a partisan witch hunt rather than a respectful intent to investigate the highest regarded office in the world. This further shows the abuse of power that many GOP members have relied on — refusing to work with others and compromise on legislation. Instead, legislation is immediately killed before compromise can even be engaged.

This would be unfair to Clinton if she became president because she would try to enact change but get turned down, not because she lacks vision or policies but rather because Republicans refuse to work with anyone under the mere title of Democrat.

Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, all members of Congress must be willing to form change, at least in areas where compromise can occur, such as social security, transportation and campaign finance reform. These are public issues that affect millions of people and have achievable compromise across party lines. Most legislators believe the U.S. infrastructure is horrific, yet legislation is often not passed because we refuse to work together on common goals. Ohio governor John Kasich, for example, was heavily critiqued by his party when he announced his support for President Obama’s Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. He supported the trade policy because he believed it helped the constituents of Ohio, but his GOP peers could not see this. All they saw was a Democrat working with a Republican, and in their partisan eyes, that is betrayal. We could solve many of our issues, but partisanship has often blinded politicians and impeded their ability to make progress. It is okay for an individual to oppose the TPP for ideological reasons, but it is not okay for an individual to reject an idea merely because it was proposed by a member of the opposing party.

Considering that the GOP has emphasized this strategy, it is not too hard to see the rise of Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee for 2016. He, being the gold standard for his party, has embraced an unprecedented stance of believing, without evidence, that if he loses the election it is not because the American electorate rejected his campaign’s message and tone but rather because it was “rigged.” A form of rhetoric that will instill illegitimacy at a time when the relationship between government and constituency is already so fragile should not be tolerated.

How can we expect a Clinton presidency to properly function when almost the entire GOP has already terminated any conversation on a wide array of issues? While not all members have publicly stated such direct obstructionism, barely any GOP members have called out their peers for their most recent troubling comments. Instead of looking at areas of common interest, Republican members block any form of conversation before the candidate even mentions a word. If we are going to hold the next president accountable, we must also ensure the legislative wing of congress is performing within their constitutional duties, not their partisan ones.

—Editor’s Note: Elias Rosenfeld ’20 is a fellow for the Hillary Clinton campaign in Massachusetts and for the New Hampshire Coordinated Campaign.