Did Justice Alito set a ‘Safe Harbor’ trap by setting Pennsylvania response deadline a day AFTER?

NOQ Report ^ | December 4, 2020 | JD Rucker

[Boise3981]

Those other dates other then January 20 are not law those are recommended days that we've lived up to.

They are the law.

The date of the general election (this year 11/3) is set in 3 U.S.C. §1
Safe harbor date (this year 12/8) is set in 3 U.S.C. §5
The electoral college vote date (this year 12/14) is set in 3 U.S.C. §7

They're very much law and not merely some "recommendation" or "request". The vote happens. That's it.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Those other dates other then January 20 are not law those are recommended days that we've lived up to.
said, "They are the law"

If they're being held up by court order what happens?

[Boise3981]

If they're being held up by court order what happens?

Bush v. Gore shows us that it's up to states to declare whether safe harbor has been met or not.

In Bush v. Gore, Gore wanted to keep recounting and fighting in the courts while Florida wanted to certify their results and take advantage of safe harbor. SCOTUS told Florida they could, regardless of what Gore wanted.

Elections are up to states. If they say we're done, we're done.

[9YearLurker]

As I understand it, fraud nullifies safe harbor protections, plus it us ultimately up to Congress and Pence, of all people, to determine if they accept designated electors.

[9YearLurker]

Well, this is interesting.

It’s on the new kraken-wood.com website with the question, “The first of many?”

https://mobile.twitter.com/DemandDanielAZ/status/1336157992505335810

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, " SCOTUS told Florida they could, regardless of what Gore wanted."
Yeap. I agree in that case. In this case there is a discrepancy on proper procedure by the state officials.

[Steve Van Doorn]

from your link "Vice President Pence @VP, I Daniel McCarthy have a signed letter from Arizona Legislators invoking Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
We have a contested outcome in Arizona"

This means Arizona is the first to flip to Trump (95% chance at least) Tomorrow very likely will be PA. Georgia all we need

[9YearLurker]

That may be where they are headed, but I am not so sure they will be done deals quite that fast. (No constitutional attorney here though, of course.)

[Boise3981]

As I understand it, fraud nullifies safe harbor protections, plus it us ultimately up to Congress and Pence, of all people, to determine if they accept designated electors.

You understand incorrectly... at least mostly.

Fraud may nullify the result, but it's up to the states to say whether there has been fraud. And so far all the states in question say there was not. And with safe harbor hitting, the chance to prove fraud in court has passed.

Congress can then evaluate whether they accept designated electors but, according to the rules passed by Congress in 1877, to nullify a slate of electors you need agreement from both houses of Congress. Clearly, the Dem House isn't going to agree to nullify any Biden state. It's doubtful even the Senate would agree to that. So the slate of electors presented by the states will stand.

Trump will get no relief from the federal courts. His only chance stems from the state level - probably state legislatures.

[Boise3981]

Yeap. I agree in that case. In this case there is a discrepancy on proper procedure by the state officials.

In Florida 2000 Gore said there was a discrepancy on proper procedure by state officials too. Florida said "no there's not. We're certifying."

In Pennsylvania 2020 Trump says there's a discrepancy on proper procedure by state officials. Pennsylvania will say "No there's not. We're certifying."

Safe harbor, like the election in general, is up to the states. If they say they're done, they're done. If none of the governor, secretary of state, or state legislature object, then the results will go forward. Bush v. Gore is spot on as far as precedent.

[9YearLurker]

I am of course no attorney, but can’t the Supremes dictate a corective that isn’t left to the legislatures?

[9YearLurker]

Also, I had understood that Congress, including Pence, had discretion in whether they consider the electors sent from the states are legitimate?

[Boise3981]

It’s on the new kraken-wood.com website with the question, “The first of many?”

The losing candidate from the Republican primary last spring doesn't get to unilaterally decide if the result is contested or not. Just like in 2000 Gore didn't get to unilaterally decide that the result in Florida was contested. That's up to the state and only the state.

Unless the governor, secretary of state, state courts, or state legislature (as a whole) objects then the result is not contested.

[9YearLurker]

You’re still not taking into account what happens in Congress:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-resolve-contested-election-part-2-how-congress-counts-electoral-votes

[TTFX]

I am of course no attorney, but can’t the Supremes dictate a corective that isn’t left to the legislatures?

---

I guess they could say: according to the laws passed by the legislature, X won. However, the legislature can always meet and choose their own electors.

[9YearLurker]

But Congress doesn’t have to recognize those electors.

[9YearLurker]

Apparently Pence himself could disqualify any that went against the Supremes—or for whatever reason.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Apparently Pence himself could disqualify any that went against the Supremes—or for whatever reason."

Yes this is true

[lepton]

... That of the 6 contested states (AZ, GA, PA, MI, WI, NV) 5 of them have not only certified their results (as all 6 have) but have also transmitted their slate of electors to the archives.

---

Those .pdfs show the slates for all of the electors associated with each candidate, and give a certification of number of votes. None of them actually say which slate is being sent forward. So it’s A, so far. Those can be updated, and in GAs case, have.