Posted on 11/18/2020 12:37:17 PM PST by PJ-Comix
Perhaps the wrong question is being asked about whether state legislatures can choose Trump electors because of evidence widespread of fraud in their elections where Biden supposedly "won." The better question might be can state legislatures just DECLINE to send electors to the electoral college due to evidence of widespread fraud which has not been resolved by the time they need to be sent?
Let us take Georgia as an example. In the light of fraud and the REFUSAL by the Secretary of State to allow a full audit of the ballots, can the state legislature state that since the issue has NOT been resolved as to fraud, they cannot determine the true winner and therefore DECLINE to send any electors to the electoral college?
This would also apply to the states of NV, AZ, PA, MI, and WI.
In Wayne, County, Michigan (Detroit), the Republican RINO legislators buckled under threats from the liberal Left to go ahead and call the county for Biden, even though there is a ton of fraud already revealed in the state election process.
Trump's team can't rely of the Republicans not to stab him and the party in the back.
He's going have to win this thing in the courts, i.e. the Supreme Court.
The local board of canvassers finds fraud and they don't certify.
The USSC finds massive fraud but takes no further action.
The state legislators see the uncertified votes, and the SC decision, and they don't assign electors.
Neither candidate gets 270 electors.
That leaves it to the House to vote, one vote for each state delegation and Trump wins.
With all of those people involved, who would the left blame??
As you say, there's a good way to pass the buck.
On one hand, Art. II, s. 1 provides that "Each state shall appoint" electors, and courts uniformly construe "shall" to be mandatory. However, no mechanism is provided to compel a state to appoint electors.
On the other hand, both Art. II, s. 1 and the 12th Amendment define the threshold for election by the electoral college to be the "majority of the whole number of Electors appointed," not the majority of electoral votes apportioned. That would seem to anticipate the possibility that less than the full number of possible electors may be appointed. It also means that, if a state does not appoint electors, then fewer than 270 electoral votes would then be required to win in the electoral college.
Chapter 1 of Title 3 of the U.S. Code contains the statutes governing presidential elections, but Congress explicitly leaves these issues to state law, as they must because the Constitution grants Congress no role in the appointment of electors other than to receive and count their votes.
The closest historical case I can think of is 1876, when there were disputed appointments of electors from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Of course, that was resolved extra-constitutionally by Congress in the Compromise of 1877.
If I had to bet, I would bet that the Supreme Court would hold that a state cannot be compelled to appoint electors. If one or more states fail to appoint electors, the electoral college meets and votes anyway and a majority is determined by the number of electors appointed.
It wouldn't be tied up in court that long. On election day, by Georgia law, the electors were chosen by the voters. At that point the slate of electors is set; confirmed by the counties, the Secretary of State, and the governor, all as the law mandated. Suddenly, based on their own suspicions and in violation of the law, the legislature says they are going to appoint their own slate of electors. How long do you think it will take for the courts to throw that slate out?
If state court tried to interfere, SCOTUS would put the lower court in its place in butt-ugly fashion like all LSU fans were expecting to happen to them last Saturday until God heard their prayers and had the Bama game cancelled. SCOTUS, which is really big on not intervening in things like elections, would be really big on telling lower courts to not intervene either. That's basically what they did in 2000 -- told the lower court to quit stalling for Gore.
Has anything been posted on this story? This is from Fox News, so I didn’t post it.
BREAKING: Michigan Republican Electors Harassed And Forced To Change Vote
190,314 views•Nov 18, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1YzQY_1Ro
This question has been covered. There is no shortcut.
Having legislatures refuse to appoint Electors will LOSE THE PRESIDENCY. This does not work. The reason is the Constitution says the vote among state delegations in the House takes place “immediately” but that word is not defined. Pelosi can simply no schedule the vote. Pres and VP term expires Jan 20 and she becomes president.
That vote can be held up forever by Dems in the House, immediately or not, and the USSC will never interfere with the process of Congress.
So forget that. The only winning maneuver is Legislatures — and then are Republican — have to conclude there is so much uncertainty and Trump/Biden only differs by a small number of votes in their state .. . they will use their own best judgement in appointing Electors, and that will be for Trump.
The Electors vote in their state (the “College” is the collection of all of them in their own state, there is no trip to Washington for themm) and an official document from the Legislature is sent to the President of the Senate (Pence). During a joint session he reads the votes and a sum is computed.
Votes can be objected to by any member of Congress as long as their is a second (this happened in 2000). Debate takes place and the presiding officer rules on the objection.
Done.
You're certain none of the Republican state delegations will flip to Biden or abstain?
I sure hope you're right.
The problem is that the buck wouldn’t be passed to Congress, because the result of a state refusing to appoint electors would be to reduce the threshold needed for a majority.
If Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona ALL refused to appoint electors, Biden would still win 233-232.
If a legislature wanted to pass the buck to Congress, they would need to appoint electors and pass a law requiring them to vote for a third candidate. The Supreme Court recently held faithless elector laws to be enforceable. Then, they might deny Biden a majority with only a couple states.
The Constitution does not specify any definite procedure.
If the State legislature insists that only Democrats will be appointed, and enacts such a policy into law, then that is the end of it.
That appears to be the effective result in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia. The "Pretense-of-Law" allows unlimited election fraud by the Democrats to insure their candidate wins.
I can see a few problems with the legitimacy of such a Government. These cannot be addressed by clever legal arguments or more "elections".
>I am suggesting that since full audits have not been allowed (so far) that the Republican legislators NOT lift a finger to choose any elector.
Except Georgia, all the swing states have Democrat legally designated authorities, generally the Secretaries of State, who are hell-for-leather to certify Democrat electors under all circumstances.
All of the swing states have Republican legislatures, which as the ultimate constitutional authorities could reclaim that authority by a positive act which they are not going to do unless compelled by an almost impossibly high level of evidence, which was my point.
Which Sidney Powell and Lin Wood now appear to be trying to do. Make the evidence so overwhelming that it would be embarrassing to choose Biden electors.
Yes and the must be faithful as per the SCOTUS
No.
Republican legislators are from Republican districts. The level of evidence required is far, far below what a court would need.
All they need is doubt. Not even certainty. You have this rather a lot wrong. They have nothing at all to lose by making this choice.
Now, if some of those legislatures appointed electors to vote for third-party candidates instead, thereby denying any Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate a majority, the result would still not be President Pelosi. If Pelosi fails to schedule the vote, the Senate can still meet and vote for Vice President. Regardless of the outcome of the GA special election and when its winners take office, Senate will still have a Republican majority on January 6 with Pence's vote, so a result would presumably be (acting) President Pence, not Pelosi. I say "(acting)," because he would cease acting as President once a President is elected.
“Pelosi can simply no schedule the vote. Pres and VP term expires Jan 20 and she becomes president.
That vote can be held up forever by Dems in the House,”
Well, Pelosi’s Democrats will deny a quorum IMO.
Interestingly though, the Senate will have meanwhile determined a new VP, who would assume the Presidential office.
I doubt that the Sargeant at Arms of the Senate will allow Members to avoid a quorum- as would happen in the House.
Typically, a dispute of a state’s Electors result in the submission of two slates to Congress.
Don’t think there’s ever been a case of no Electors. There have been some replies about why that wouldn’t be to the point.
If they don’t set a slate of electors, they disenfranchise the voters in the state. Bad move politically. But no, the Constitution does not require states submit a slate of electors.
All they need is doubt. Not even certainty. You have this rather a lot wrong. They have nothing at all to lose by making this choice.
Not every Republican state legislator is from a safe Republican district. Plenty of them have to win over swing voters. I also think you are underestimating the number of Republican voters who would have a problem with their state representatives voting to disregard the outcome of a Presidential election in their state absent compelling evidence.
Legally, they don't need any evidence at all to exercise their power to appoint electors. Politically, they'll probably need conclusive evidence.
No = 1864 southern states not participating. Lincoln won a majority present and voting.
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.