Posted on 09/08/2020 4:38:27 PM PDT by LS
...here we are.
And this election is going to be a nightmare.
If they couldn’t count their votes or just withheld them, how about their representatives in Congress? A reasonable person would say if they couldn’t get their electors for President counted or verified, everything else on the same ballot would be the same. No House representatives.
the present circumstances being that people can safely do many things with this virus, but not vote?
Most states have relaxed rules on requesting absentee ballots but they aren't sending ballots out to everyone unless they request them. So while more mail in ballots can be expected, but it's not a major change from prior elections. The failure of many people to request mail-in ballots who don't want to go to the polls will be one of the reasons for the depressed voter turnout.
There are 5 states that have a history of sending every voter a mail in ballot. And given that they didn't have delays in the past, I suspect they will be on time this year. That's Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
There are 4 more that have decided to mail ballots to everyone this year. That's California (D), Montana (R)(left up to the county), Nevada (D), New Jersey (D). If there are delays they will likely be from these 4 states.
And S. Dakota (R) is undecided whether they will mail ballots out to everyone.
how-vote-by-mail-works-in-all-50-states-for-election-day-2020
Most logical to me, is that the state’s failure to submit their electors by the deadline means that the totals are adjusted downward to reflect this.
That doesn’t mean logic will prevail.
plus we have a lot of Soros elected SOS now.
“This seems to suggest that the “quorum” is not “all available states” but all states that submit electors. And while Congress has the precedent of not accepting some electors, it apparently has never forced a state to vote or submit electors. This it APPEARS that if, say, CA decided to withhold its electors, the quorum would drop by 55 electoral votes, and the number needed to win would drop to 191.”
That seems the most logical to me, but would also mean they would have no Congress reps.
Sadly, these people are desperate, and I don’t think that logic, fairness, or the law matters to them.
I don’t see a quorum requirement but I do see a problem if a State disenfranchises it’s citizens by intention.
The Constitution says in Article 4:
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
What does “guarantee to every State...a Republican Form of Government” mean if a State operates so as to deny the state’s voters the right to send Electors to Congress?
Does the Federal government ignore this requirement at its peril?
See this interesting item from Post #9 ...
If a state thinks it's in risk of defaulting on its Electoral College participation, then the legislature can exercise its plenary power to call a special session and choose to directly appoint their Electors, regardless of how the state's citizens voted.
This should give us a bit of comfort. The states where your scenario -- a swing state with a Democrat governor and/or Secretary of State either openly rigs the election or refuses to certify the state's results -- is most likely to unfold are the following:
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
North Carolina
I'm pretty sure all of these states have Republican-dominated state legislatures.
This is what the 2nd amendment is for.
A house divided can not stand, for no rules whatsoever can be agreed upon. No point of connection, no point of agreement. This is how a society falls.
Win or lose, we are at war on Nov. 4 (or whenever thereafter the Democrats decide to engage their coup).
We need to be mentally and emotionally ready on Nov. 4 for the war that is coming. We will likely be asked not just to die for our beliefs and our ability to live as free men, we will be asked to kill for those things.
A few comments, Larry:
“As best I can tell, there is no penalty for NOT delivering an elector slate. The Founders (and everyone else, apparently) though it ludicrous that any state would voluntarily not take part in an election & deny its citizens the right to vote.”
I believe this is correct, and that no consideration was ever given to the idea that a State would fail to deliver a slate of Electors.
“In Bush v. Gore, a 5-4 ruling held that FL could NOT recount statewide ballots because it would have missed the Dec. 12 (as I recall) deadline that year. The USSC ruled that it was a violation of the “one man, one vote” to only partially count and SINCE they couldn’t count the whole state, Gore’s partial recount was invalid.”
I met Ben Ginsburg, the lead counsel in the Florida cases, at an Ohio Association of Election Officials conference a couple of years ago. I told him I’d been waiting for years to ask him a single question: “What would the Bush Campaign have done had the decision in Bush V. Gore allowed recounts to continue past the deadline to certify Electors?”
His answer? This was no worry, as the Florida Legislature would have appointed it’s own set of Electors, bound to vote for Bush, to the Electoral College. Bush would have been elected, and Ginsburg’s team he would have then filed to have the recount stopped as being moot.
I believe action along these lines would be taken in states where certification is obviously being delayed. Frankly, I expect Trump to win by a margin large enough to be declared the winner on Election Day.
In the scenario we're discussing, the will of the voter is unknown due to the systemic chaos created by the Democrat party.
Even if the will of the voter were known and the legislature tried to overturn it, they'd be on solid Constitutional ground to do so given that their power to choose the method doesn't have a "no backsies" clause; their power to choose is Supreme law of the Land, and their legislation to choose the method is subordinate to their power to choose.
Politically, they'd have a harder time justifying their own reelection if they overturned the vote of the people. However, they'd be in the right if they stopped a prolonged uncertainty that was rife with fraud and lack of confidence in the outcome.
-PJ
One thing to keep in mind: While the Constitution says electors are appointed in the manner the Legislature chooses, the courts have also held that the method for choosing the electors has to be selected prior to the votes being cast. So you couldn’t have a case where the method of selecting electors was by popular vote (which is true of all states right now), and then have the legislature deciding to have the governor or legislature appoint the electors directly after the vote has been held. Any such changes would only apply to subsequent elections. You can’t change the rules after the game has started.
Nice summary, thank you!
In elections for President and Congress, the biggest issue at stake involves the potential disenfranchisement of voters -- in violation of Federal laws like the Voting Rights Act and/or Civil Rights Act. The FSC could delay certification for as long as it wanted -- for a thousand years, even. But under the U.S. Constitution it's the responsibility of the state legislature, not a state court, to certify that state's electors.
Interestingly, this is exactly what happened a few years after the 2000 election when the Democratic Party in New Jersey violated the state's own election ballot deadline to replace a crooked U.S. Senator (Robert Torricelli) with a new candidate (Frank Lautenberg) who had a better chance of winning. The New Jersey GOP filed a lawsuit in Federal court over it, but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case because they couldn't stretch their brains to come up with a scenario where this blatant violation of New Jersey law was somehow a matter for the Federal courts.
In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court -- and I believe it was Justice Scalia who wrote the explanation for why they didn't take the case -- said: "If the state legislature lets a political campaign openly violate a state election law like this, then that's a problem for the voters of that state to deal with."
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Bush v Gore explicitly states that it is not a precedent. Any other decision on the merits of a new case would not have to worry about that.
"Also, the “one man, one vote” thing would really run counter to overturning the deadline."
The issue was that partial recounts violated equal protection, but that there wasn't enough time to complete a full recount. It's not that a deadline or changing a deadline would somehow violate equal protection.
The Constitution doesn't put a limit on the state legislature's power to choose the method.
Do you really think the Supreme Court would allow a chaotic situation to persist past the Congressional deadline for the Electoral College vote? Isn't that why they took Bush v Gore in the first place?
The Constitution doesn't tell the states how to conduct their elections, so I can't see how SCOTUS can bind the legislature from exercising its plenary power while allowing a state to run rampant using subordinate powers.
I don't believe that SCOTUS would prevent a state legislature from putting an end to an uncertain count that threatens the entire Electoral College when the Constitution grants the state the power to choose the method, early, late, or whenever.
-PJ
I think there's a difference between a state "changing election law" and exercising its own Constitutional plenary power.
A state that calls a special session to appoint Electors is not "changing election law," since its Constitutional power to select the method of choosing elections is Supreme law of the Land and superior to "election law."
"Changing election law" would be changing ballot deadlines, changing rules for challenging ballots, changing candidate qualifications, etc.
This isn't that.
-PJ
There is minimal need for mail ballots.
Only six states don’t have in person early voting for some
number of days. Thus most voters can vote early and probably
won’t have to be in long lines.
Two states have all mail in votes..... Colorado - Oregon
https://www.vote.org/early-voting-calendar/
Early Voting Calendar by State for 2020
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.