I have to admit that I am unclear about how different slates of electors both voting works out. Is this a maneuver to keep the battle in front of the jellyfish-spined judges?
I do not believe it matters unless the state legislators also grow a spine... what Texas tried to make them do is going to have to come from them.
Judges who are incapable of STANDING.
The election is now contested.
The courts will not touch the issue (so far, just like 0bama’s fake birth certificate).
Electors certify to the Government, via their vote, the election is free from corruption, ballot stuffing, foreign influence, etc.
Those electors voting for sleepy Joe, and ignore the heap of evidence pointing to illegal acts are in legal trouble.
Their names to be revealed January 6. The fake news will have you believe all of Joe’s electors cast a vote for Joe
Come Jan 6, if a few people object to the votes cast, the congressmen suss out the facts and decide who is President from the electoral votes in front of them.
They decide between Joe and President trump
The issue falls to the politicians.
President Trump declared a National Security threat a few years ago.
Those who support sleepy Joe/Red China will win an all expenses paid trip to Club Gitmo
Right. Unclear. Can a state legally send two slates of electors? What if the were barred from the voting, are they still legal and their votes get counted how?
Both the House and the Senate have to approve of the alternate slate, and Pelosi certainly will not allow the GOP electors. What of Mitch - will he allow it? Too uncertain unclear - it almost seem like a can of worms comparable to the election itself.
Please read the DNC v. RNC Consent Decree. The litigation started in 1981. For 36 years, the Republicans have been under the heel of the Democratic Party. The consent decree expired December 01, 2017.
long link:
http://archive.today/2020.12.09-215153/https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
][
This all goes back to a lawsuit...in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.
A concise layman’s explanation was presented by NPR in a podcast interview with elections law expert, Rick Hasen.
Essentially, the RNC consented to a no-compete-agreement that was under threat of enforcement as a contempt of court for the interval from 1981 to December 2017.
~~more news at eleven.
Courts have nothing to do with counting or certifying electoral votes.