[Alberta's Child]

How are executive orders contrary to statutory law negating signature requirements on mail-in ballots, creating drop boxes, ignoring chain of custody requirements, etc any different?

It really depends on the state. In some cases (I believe PA may have been one), there are laws on the books that give the governor a wide range of powers in the event of a self-declared "emergency." Those laws never should have existed in the first place. The executive orders in question stood up to legal challenges because they apparently met all the legal requirements under the letter of those laws.

That's why I said the state legislatures should have cut the whole farce off at the knees by simply approving their own slates of electors after Election Day and before the Electoral College certification on December 14th.

I would like to see the Constitution amended to require the lower house of the state legislature, (except Nebraska which doesn't have one), to certify the election results.

I like my idea better. Let the legislatures appoint the electors, period -- and put an end to this idiotic idea that every moron who can breathe on a mirror should have a say in our elections.

[Dr. Franklin]

It really depends on the state. In some cases (I believe PA may have been one), there are laws on the books that give the governor a wide range of powers in the event of a self-declared "emergency." Those laws never should have existed in the first place. The executive orders in question stood up to legal challenges because they apparently met all the legal requirements under the letter of those laws.

In PA the legislature passed a law for mail in voting that clearly violated the state constitution. Now perhaps they can do that for presidential electors, but not for other offices...The state supreme court then decided to order an extension for those ballots contrary to statute, and the SoS issued a last minute order for "curing" improper ballots. In AZ they first watered down and then completely ignored signature verification, as they did in NV. In GA, the executive branch entered into consent decree agreements to violate statutory law in contrived lawsuits. In Michigan, a court ruled that the elections weren't conducted lawfully, but afforded no remedy, just an admonition not to do it again. In WI, the supreme court ruled that mail in ballots were wrongly sent out in mass, but made it impossible to disqualify them. The best explanation for why the election certifications were allowed to stand is that the legislatures failed to object.

That's why I said the state legislatures should have cut the whole farce off at the knees by simply approving their own slates of electors after Election Day and before the Electoral College certification on December 14th.

People need to hold them accountable for this.

I like my idea better. Let the legislatures appoint the electors, period -- and put an end to this idiotic idea that every moron who can breathe on a mirror should have a say in our elections.

The whole lacuna, as the Brits call it, is that Constitution anticipated the legislatures appointing the electors, which they no longer do, nor wish to dirty their hands with touching, (unless it is ultimately required to elect a Bush). So they need to be forced to certify the elections as they are the ones voters can best hold accountable for any nonsense. Otherwise, state legislatures won't resume appointing presidential electors any more than women will quit the workforce, have large families, stay home and cook dinner for their husbands, and start wearing hoop skirts again. The Seventeenth Amendment won't be repealed either...