Posted on 09/10/2020 12:06:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I am utterly terrified.
“Like which state for example?”
Arizona, for example will vote for Trump but has more Democrats in their delegation than Republicans.
You can expect those House Democrats from Arizona to cast their vote for Biden.
Colorado is similarly situated which will be won by Trump but has more Democrats in their House Delegation.
Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are all states that very well will vote Trump but have House delegations that are majority Democrat.
And that’s not even counting Republicans turncoats we know, and those yet to reveal themselves.
It is implied (although not actually explicitly provided in the Constitution) that a representative’s term ends on January 3 and that the seat becomes vacant if no one is elected for the next term. The filling of vacancies in the House is governed by the Constitution, which requires state governors to issue “writs of election,” and 2 U.S.C. s. 8, which recognizes that a vacancy can be “caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law.”
Under that statute, special elections to fill vacancies are governed by state law, except there is a specific federal procedure for expedited special elections in “extraordinary circumstances,” which occur when when “the Speaker of the House of Representatives announces that vacancies in the representation from the States in the House exceed 100.”
The Speaker’s announcement of vacancies can be challenged by a suit filed in the federal court of the district where a vacancy was announced (potentially over 100 lawsuits), which must be filed within 2 days and is heard by a 3-judge panel, whose ruling is final and not appealable. Potentially, the outgoing representatives could challenge the vacancy and argue, among other things, that because the Constitution does not specifically state when a representative’s term ends, their term does not end until a replacement is duly elected.
There are fewer statutes governing Senate elections. The Constitution originally provided that the Senators’ seats were vacated at the end of their terms, but this language appears to be superseded by the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment provides that vacancies are filled by “writs of election” issued by the state governors, but does not provide for any special expedited election of senators.
Of course, one must also remember that, under Article I, Section 5, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” The Supreme Court has held that this clause “gives final and exclusive jurisdiction to each House of Congress to determine election contests relating to its members,” and such determinations are not subject to review by the courts.
I’m sure you can see quite a few avenues for mischief in all of this...
I don’t think that’s a likely scenario.
So what happens if the Senate votes to certify the results and the house votes not to certify the results?
Supreme Court? It's not the best written part of the constitution that I have seen.
that does not sound good. better to let it drag on and get resolved in the senate imho.
They may try to trot out the NPV movement as their cause.
(National Popular Vote)
The newly elected House and Senate are always required to certify the Electoral College in the January after a presidential election, giving congressmen the chance to challenge the results. If any congressman does so, it would trigger a vote in each chamber on whether to certify the electoral votes in the disputed state or states.
if i recall correctly a challenge must have at least one member from each of the two chambers. There were challenges in 2000, but no US Senator was willing to join any of them, so no challenges were deemed valid.
Overriding the election results in their states results in an illegitimate President. Then, all bets are off.
i seem to remember that maxine waters was one of the challengers in 2000. she is still around.
Hopefully not, and yet another reason not to sleep on House elections.
As Esper and Miley have already told Trump to pound sand if he invokes the Insurrection Act, the military will not lift a hand.
Republicans still hold the majorities in 26 congressional delegations to the US House with one state tied.
Plus Trump never won Colorado in 2016 anyways.
Plus Republicans could very well gain the majority in Arizona on November 3, there being no mass mail in ballots in Arizona.
You apparently have not seen the rumors making the rounds that Trump is going to fire Esper after the election. 7AM on November 4 seems likely.
We can hope.
Given that both gentlemen can be dismissed today or at any time between now and January 20th by the President, I wouldn't worry too much about either gentleman. They may do well to read up on Truman versus Gen Douglas McArthur and more recently, Gen Mattis who was sacked by Trump.
Oat Willie for President!
She may lose her majority, but they'll still be in office until January.
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.