Posted on 11/04/2020 5:17:39 AM PST by Liz
It’s well known that the Democrats have announced their plan to delay the counting of votes in the November presidential election as long as possible. Some think they want it to go to the US Supreme Court, where John Roberts might again abandon conservatives and stick it to Donald Trump.
Remember, despite the polls, increasingly the murmurs coming from the Democrats are that they will drag the vote-counting out until 2021 and/or put the matter into the courts.
Can they do this? Is it possible? The fact is, almost no one knows.
In the 1876 presidential election, the electoral counts from three states were in, creating a stalemate that took weeks to resolve.
One less-than-reliable answer comes from the less-than-reliable Atlantic, which cited the 1887 Electoral Count Act adopted in the wake of the 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. Easily, this was the closest election in American history, requiring a joint commission of Congress to evaluate contested electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina—all of which apparently favored the Democrat Samuel Tilden. Each state, however, had claims of vote fraud and threats of violence against Republicans (especially the freedmen who voted Republican).
South Carolina, for example, saw 101% of all eligible voters vote, auguring the famous 1960 election in Chicago where the dead voted. (It’s worth noting that the loser, Tilden, won the popular vote with a whopping 57% to Hayes’s 42%).
The Electoral Count Act requires that electors be chosen for the Electoral College no later than 41 days after the national election. In this case, that date would be December 14.
A reading of the language of the act seems to say that whoever is ahead on December 14 wins, period. But what is meant by “ahead?” A US Congressman tells me that the requirement is fixed in stone: someone has to get to 270, but National Review’s Andrew McCarthy disagrees.
The law itself seems to say just the opposite: “The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” What is the “whole number of Electors appointed?” Does that mean “appointed” by the states that have submitted elector slates or appointed by the de facto total number of electors available? McCarthy says that the president must have a majority of those submitted, not 270.
In the U.S. Civil War, we had exactly this situation. Remember, Lincoln defined the war as a “rebellion,” meaning the Southern states never left the Union. But in practical terms, they had.
So what happened with their electors in 1864? There were none submitted. Yet the election went forward with Lincoln winning because he won the majority of the electors submitted.
Using the example that the Atlantic chose, Pennsylvania, it is possible that the presidential election could come down to Pennsylvania and that its votes can’t be counted by Dec. 14.
Does the state just lose its votes? Some scholars say yes. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy argued “the process is controlled by Congress under longstanding statutory law (found in Chapter 1 of Title 3, U.S. Code).
In a nutshell, all state disputes, if any, over election results must be resolved by December 8.” Let’s call that the certification date. That is, a state is required to certify its slate of electors, which will determine who won the state, by December 8. Then, on December 14 the electors meet in their states and cast their votes. Note: nowhere is the state’s governor involved in this. While a Secretary of State has to provide the certification on December 8, the governor has no role in the election process.
For example, 3 U.S. Code § 2. “Failure to Make Choice on Prescribed Day,” says “Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” (By the way, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin all have Republican legislatures).
Again, the governor is irrelevant. However, the chief executive of the state is required to transmit the results to the U.S. Archivist. What happens if no certificates of electors are transmitted? This is the “monkey in the wrench” as John McClain said in Die Hard.
Other then a fine for the person appointed by the state to deliver the certificate of electors’ votes to the President of the Senate who fails to deliver such a slate ($1,000) there is no state penalty for failure to participate in the election. (In 3 U.S. Code § 12., 13, 14)
Indeed, this is the biggest problem in the new US Code relating to the elections, as nothing is said about what happens to a state that fails to deliver its electors. In 3 US Code § 12 and 13, when no certified vote from any state has been received by the Senate or the archivist, they can “request” the secretary of state of the state in question to send up the certificate “lodged with him by the electors of such state.” Wait! What if there are no electors because the votes are “still being counted?” The Code doesn’t specify what comes next, although oddly it allows a district judge “in whose custody one certificate of votes from that state has been lodged” to transmit the votes.
Again, however, no one ever asked the question: “What if a state does not want its votes counted?” Electoral votes that are certified in the state are then transmitted to Congress, a process that is supposed to be completed by December 23. On January 6 at 1 p.m., both houses of Congress convene to count the votes. If no president has been chosen by that time, the House of Representatives is to choose from between the top two elector recipients. Right here the doomsayers scream “See! I knew Pelosi would steal it!” Well, no. The House is to vote—not by member (i.e., 435)—but by delegation. Republicans in the current House control 26, Democrats 23, and one is split.
This then would elect Donald Trump as President. (The Senate then decides the vice president, and here Pence would be the selection). “Wait! What if it is the next House?”
There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that a single delegation could flip to the Democrats, let alone two and quite the opposite likelihood that the Republicans will expand their seats in the House—though I don’t know the delegations well enough to determine if another could flip to the GOP.
So what’s the verdict?
It appears a majority of whichever electors are certified on December 14 is the winner.
If states hold out, for any reason, they can be pressured to conform, but there is no penalty under law.
Apparently, however, they would just lose their electoral votes. (Even the most goofball radical Democrat governor would think twice about ceding his state’s place in a presidential election—there is too much precedent set there.) And, remember, legislatures have the final call on all matters related to the electors. The state legislatures can simply say “Time’s up” and force the Secretary of State to certify, probably even over the opposition of a governor. Of course, each of these steps likely would go to court.
The House would vote for Trump anyway.
Finally, any court tinkering with any of this would surely know that the only solution would be a full-blown re-writing of all U.S. election law. Just as the court did in Bush v. Gore, they will quickly conclude this is way beyond the abilities of any—and probably all—the courts in the nation.
In short, if Trump wins election night, he will likely win on December 14.
=====================================================
Larry Schweikart is the co-author with Michael Allen of the New York Times #1 bestseller A Patriot’s History of the United States, author of Reagan: the American President, and founder of the Wild World of History, a history curriculum website for homeschoolers and other educators with a US and World history curriculum that includes teacher guides, student workbooks, tests, images/graphs, and a video lesson accompanying every written lesson (www.wildworldofhistory.com).
You are wrong that nothing will be done about it. Millions will not recognize an illegitimate government. The only thing left to do is to fight them by any means possible.
(h/t Boogieman)
Some say Democrats will drag the vote-counting out until 2021.
That’s just fantasy.
The Electoral College votes when it votes.
That’s embedded in US law and isn’t going to change even if the Democrats aren’t finished counting.
Been involved with politics for a long time and the problem is we have too many people in state republican parties who think this is still a gentleman’s game.
We give up the two most populous States: New York and California without a fight.
If it looked like Trump was defeated, it would be just desserts if Trump’s FBI arrested Biden (please, a man can dream).
Of course, we’d then be contending with the detested vp pick.
If the left wants Kamala, let them have her. They showed America how to treat a president “it didn’t vote for”.
Let them wallow in it. I don’t thinks she— or they— are up to what that means.
Patience is a virtue.
Although some say the chances of Trump's court effort having any success does not appear to be strong,
keep in mind we do not yet know what other moves Trump may be making as we type.
REFERENCE: On the issue of late vote tallies, Trump pointed to his court battle predictions about mass mail in voting.
He called for vote counting to stop and said he will appeal to the USSC immediately."We want the law to be used in a proper manner."
"Frankly, we won this election...We won this election. This is a major fraud on this nation."
President @realDonaldTrump: "So we'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. As far as I'm concerned, we already have won it."
pic.twitter.com/9RUw8RSYz4 — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 4, 2020
STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANE: The USSC ruled in the Bush/Gore fiasco that it was a violation of the “one man, one vote”
to only partially count and SINCE they couldn't count the whole state of Florida, Gore's partial recount was invalid.
The USSC ordered the count to be stopped.
Seemed more like the USSC's acknowledgement of Democrats' proclivities
to count, recount, then count again, till they had the necessary votes to win.
BTW, when the USSC stepped in ......it was due to brilliant legal moves by Bush's lawyer, former Secy of State James Baker.
In his book about losing the election, Gore related that whenever his lawyers got to court,
Bush's lawyers had already been there.....always a step ahead of them.
======================================
(Blackmon) The polls closed, but ballots continued to roll in from Dem-controlled cities...Atlanta, Detroit, Philly.
It’s hard not to assume that some significant voter fraud is taking place in Biden’s favor. Whether Trump's team
could reverse outcomes by actually proving that fraud was massive enough to make the difference
seems unlikely given the ineptitude of such efforts from the past.
That's assuming the legal argument is based on the intellectually facile argument of "fraud" alone.
And Biden even said that he had a big fraud machine (or something like that)
There is no way in hell we’re gonna break the grip the dims have in the urban areas of those states!
Whether Biden wins thru fraud or thru legitimate voting, the system is badly broken if a corrupt pedophile
with dementia, uses his govt position to run a Crime Family Syndicate, beats one of the greatest presidents
we've ever had. Something is very wrong, no matter how you slice it.
Especially if nobody dares to try.
Give me one example of what we should do. The welfare population in both states grows everyday. People are leaving because of high taxes. The numbers needed to change anything just aren’t there.
Yep...force works better than voting. Always has.
(h/t nitzy)
A potential tool to fight vote fraud...everyone is saying they need to do a recount in MI and WI but I don’t think that would matter.
The Dems didn’t change R votes to D votes. They found out who didn’t vote yesterday and then created votes for those people in the middle of the night.
It shouldn’t be too tough to create an easily searchable database from the publicly available voter roles that people could use to find out who voted.
For example, I could enter in the names of my family members and see which ones were showing as having voted. If I knew for a fact that one had not voted, I could report this.
If there were enough of these types of reports (especially if they were all counted in the same batch) it would be clear evidence of fraud.
Once again, Pelosi deceives the American public....... and easily-fooled Democratic party voters, as well.
The Democraps won a 2016 House Majority because of false accusations of Russian election collusion....that Dems colluded to pin on Trump.
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign paid for the salacious dossier, and Mueller’s multi-million dollar investigation was generated by false accusations.
Nanzi is the master of the “wrap-up smear”....and uses it over and over......almost worked on Kavanaugh.
Penlosi blithely announced the Dems MO at a presser......how Dems mfg smears then retail it to the media as fact.
Hillary was good at this......leaking smears about Trumpp....then holding up the news article, saying thus proves she is the superior candidate.
Yes, welfare votes, and illegal alien-relative votes in this GA county (Cobb, NW Atlanta suburban) are turning it ever blue each election.
Well - with enough roll-over-and-die-with-a-pitiful-whimper folks out there, rooting the Dems on like you seem to be, there’s’ nothing left to fight for.
President Trump has been fighting insurmountable odds and prevailing for 4 years now despite the milquetoasts pretending to be for FReedom.
Why not ask your namesake to do a song called, “The Year of the Rat” and dedicate it to you?
What are your rounded lips gorging upon? Lol
You think that by me remaining steadfast in optimism, the election theft will be prevented? I’d give my right arm if it guaranteed a Trump win.
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.