Posted on 09/08/2020 4:38:27 PM PDT by LS
There has been a lot of discussion, especially here on FR, in disjointed threads on other topics. Would some of you who have commented on this please weigh in here.
This is my understanding of the Constitution and Statutory Law that supports elections. *There is an "Election Day" stipulated in the Constitution. *States are on their own as to HOW they "certify" their electors *There is no Constitutional date given for when the electors must be certified. *In (I think) the 23rd Amendment the date for delivering the elector slates to the Joint Session of Congress to be counted (2 counters from each house) is now Jan. 6. Remember in the 1800s, due to transportation limitations, the date was early March. *Statute law has fixed Dec. 14 (this year) as the date by which the states must "certify" their electors. *The certified elector lists must be delivered to Chuck Grassley, the Pres of the Senate, on December 23.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court implied that the state can count up to the point of the Dec. 14 (12th in 2000) deadline.
What is NOT clear is, what if a state simply refuses to certify its count/electors and doesn't submit at all?
Some of you have argued that there is a "quorum" and the 270 number would be adjusted downward relative to the number of states that did submit. THIS SEEMS THE MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION, GIVEN THAT IN THE ELECTION OF 1864 Congress only counted the votes of those states still in the Union; and 17 electoral votes from reconstructed parts of LA and TN voted, submitted electors, but were not allowed to be counted.
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.
However, another interpretation is that ALL states must have their electors counted. I cannot find this in the Constitution or in Statute law.
Finally, it would seem that there would be a major constitutional issue from the citizens of such a state in that they would be denied their civil rights to vote due to the governor's/state legislature's decision to withhold a final count. Given the wordage of Bush v. Gore, it would seem this would be a big deal and that a state could NOT withhold its electoral count just to "tie up" the election.
As I say, neither the Founders nor almost anyone since ever dreamed of such venality that a state would try to tie up an election out of hatred for a president, but here we are. Comments and analysis welcome.
I guess that would only be a problem if A ZTrump state has dem legislature other the legislature can vote to appoint the electors Without the governor or sos certifying anything
Bttt
Just to remind folks even if this goes to the house they only get to electors per state. Do republicans control more states than dems?? I think they do
23 states have a clear majority of repubs. That may mean some that are close (one or two reps different) may have a tough battle of how to split. There are five or six of those
Plus the newly elected house must be seated in January before Inauguration Day. The new house may look even better
That said, we all know what happens when Democrats succeed at advancing to yet another gate -- it's usually because feckless Republicans let them through the prior gate.
-PJ
It precisely is a deadline.
And it doesn’t matter if you say “This isn’t a precedent” when it very clearly is. ALL Scotus rulings are.
Agree.
No you contradicted yourself. I a majority of thos APPOINTED & D states don’t appoint, Trump wins.
a thousand Xerox machines couldn’t do this.
I think this scenario is extremely far fetched.
This is what I was thinking. Wouldn’t hold up in court though.
Correct but you miss the point. It has nothing to do with HOW electors are chosen, but NOT representing the people OR the state by being withheld is a violation of civil rights.
“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?”
***********************************************
That’s a guarantee the each individual state must have a Republican form of government. It’s not a guarantee that the state will select electors and have those electors vote for a presidential candidate. A Republican form of government could, theoretically, do the stupid “let’s not appoint electors” drill.
ha. Good one
Agree. This must be fixed.
Good food for thought.
That happened in 1876.
I get that. EVERY ruling sets precedent even when you say it doesn’t.
Don’t think so. USSC won’t overrule USSC from only 20 years ago.
I believe Washington state went to all mail in votes
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.