Posted on 11/20/2020 10:58:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
HARRISBURG — A deeply divided state House on Thursday voted to approve a Republican-sponsored measure that sets up a near-immediate audit of the 2020 election, citing inconsistencies and confusion in the electorate as evidence the process must be improved for future elections in the state.
The chamber voted 112 to 90 for a resolution that told the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, or a contractor it will hire, to conduct the audit and report back by early February.
Republicans argued they were responding to constituents who were confused by some of the procedures as the state conducted a high-turnout election during a pandemic and under greatly expanded mail-in voting eligibility.
Democratic arguments that the measure should be revised or was unconstitutional were defeated by the GOP majority.
“There is no need to fear this audit. I welcome it. We all should welcome it, to find out what went right and what went wrong,” said Bedford County Rep. Jesse Topper, the prime sponsor of the resolution.
The resolution does not require approval by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf or the state Senate. There is no limit on how much the committee can spend on the study.
Separately, the Department of State plans another “risk limiting” audit under a pilot program to apply statistical tools that will measure the election’s accuracy and check for possible interference.
This second audit is to involve data from every county.
Democrats attacked the proposal, calling it unconstitutional, damaging to democracy and unnecessary.
Mr. Wolf issued a written statement by email during the debate, saying any audit done by this approach would be “incomplete, duplicative and unreliable.”
The committee is expected to generate a report that is to include, for each county and for the state as a whole:
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Yep.
Never believe a Democrat promise to do something in the future in exchange for you doing something now.
-PJ
-PJ
At a minimum, PA, GA, and one other state “won” by Biden would have to not certify. PA by itself is not enough.
OK by me. Push Harrisburg into the Susquehanna River for all I care.
“Maybe we are better off throwing PA out of the Union.”
Easy now. All that is needed is to annex Philthy to NJ.
RE: At a minimum, PA, GA, and one other state “won” by Biden would have to not certify
Contrary to what was reported out there, GA has NOT YET certified the results.
See here:
TITLE: Georgia secretary of state issues correction, clarifying election results not yet certified
When is it our turn to dox some leftists and their families?
Show up at THEIR homes with banging pots and pans?
“Nancy Pelosi fully supports this maddeningly slow walk of vote verification. At a certain point, she will become our president, if all remains unresolved.”
Your understanding of our Constitution and the Electoral process are woefully inadequate.
Please see Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 68: https://constitutingamerica.org/july-30-2010-%E2%80%93-federalist-no-68-%E2%80%93-the-mode-of-electing-the-president-from-the-new-york-packet-hamilton-%E2%80%93-guest-blogger-joerg-knipprath-professor-of-law-at-southwestern-l/
“Easy now. All that is needed is to annex Philthy to NJ.”
Maybe the citizens in PA will get their house in order.
Didn’t someone say MI wasn’t certified?
“When is it our turn to dox some leftists and their families?
Show up at THEIR homes with banging pots and pans?”
Soon real soon
Yes, it does.
Both the Constitution and US Code Title 3 Chapter 1 use the word "appointed," not "apportioned," when referring to votes.
12th Amendment
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...
3 U.S. Code § 1 - Time of appointing electors
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
3 U.S. Code § 2.Failure to make choice on prescribed day
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.
3 U.S. Code § 3.Number of electors
The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office; except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives.
3 U.S. Code § 4.Vacancies in electoral college
Each State may, by law, provide for the filling of any vacancies which may occur in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote.
3 U.S. Code § 5.Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
You'll note that §3 is the apportionment part of the law that sets the number of Electors each state is entitled to.
The state must still appoint people to the Electoral College.
The 12th amendment is clear that it is a majority of appointed Electors that matters, not apportioned Electors, in other words, a majority of votes cast by Electors.
-PJ
I do believe it is also just a sample audit and it can be done by a third party. A total JOKE!
Thank you for the info. I suppose I’m guilty of simply parroting what I’ve been hearing on the news.
bttt
Montgomery County has three commissioners. Two are from one party, the third must be from he other party. The one refusing is the lone Republican commissioner.
I suspect that the state legislatures in contested states will step in and directly appoint the Electors.
They have until December 8 to do this. I think that all it will take is for one state to take the lead and be the first to do it, and then the others will follow suit.
Then it will go to the whole Congress, not just the House, to contest the Electors themselves.
See this post of mine for details.
-PJ
Just have every red county secede. Then the City of Brotherly Fraud will be forced to join NJ.
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.