Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Safe Harbor Provision (not so fast)
www.law.cornell.edu ^ | June 25,1948 | US Code

Posted on 12/07/2020 3:30:33 PM PST by dontreadthis

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.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673.)


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: electors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
Here it is. The key phrases: 1."final determination": says who?, remains to be seen, etc. 2."by judicial or other methods or procedures": wide open, legislative hearings/meetings would qualify

also: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1359230/Electoral_College_Deadlines_White_Paper.pdf?p=pdf

1 posted on 12/07/2020 3:30:33 PM PST by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

The refusal to cooperate with or subversion of legitimate election challenges should not count as resolution.


2 posted on 12/07/2020 3:32:54 PM PST by calenel (Tree of Liberty is thirsty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

You’re ignoring the phrase, “If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors...” Hearings, federal lawsuits, meetings, etc. were not provided for by state laws passed before election day, so they don’t affect the safe harbor deadline.


3 posted on 12/07/2020 3:36:30 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calenel

That’s exactly what it is, too.

I heard part of the Powell hearing today. The Judge was looking for any excuse - ANY EXCUSE AT ALL - to not grant the plaintiff’s requests.


4 posted on 12/07/2020 3:38:04 PM PST by sauropod (Let them eat kale. I will not comply. Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

They can run , but they can’t hide

Just as before the Democrats are going to have to take very difficult positions such as being for fraud!

They’re already anti-baby

And the anti-police


5 posted on 12/07/2020 3:42:32 PM PST by Truthoverpower (The guv-mint you get is the Trump winning express ! Yea haw ! Trump Pence II! Save America again )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

I guess we’ll see if SCOTUS agrees with us.


6 posted on 12/07/2020 3:42:32 PM PST by calenel (Tree of Liberty is thirsty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

not sure I understand what you’re pointing out, but this statute is over 80 years old and is going to be open to wide interpretation, imo, as I believe we’ll soon find out


7 posted on 12/07/2020 3:45:22 PM PST by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: calenel

SCOTUS knows that SCOTUS will be picked to pieces if the left gets power. Either they matter to themselves or they don’t. You better believe they matter to themselves. They won’t commit Seppuku.


8 posted on 12/07/2020 3:47:57 PM PST by isthisnickcool (1218 - NEVER FORGET!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if SCOTUS doesn’t offer some guidance on this statute in their ruling on the Kelly case.
And I am hopeful that guidance will include an admonition that the deadline set by this federal statute was not designed to be used to certify a fraudulent election (or at least an election whose validity remains in doubt).


9 posted on 12/07/2020 3:50:43 PM PST by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

I can’t see how the SC couldn’t see what’s going on. They don’t live in a bubble.


10 posted on 12/07/2020 3:50:57 PM PST by Osagegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis
Let's redact this to take out the verbal diarrhea:

If any State shall have provided... for its final determination of any controversy concerning the appointment of the electors by judicial...procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination .... shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution.

Since all these cases are on appeal and will continue to be until final resolution by SCOTUS and any further proceedings on remand, NOTHING is a final judicial determination. Period.

11 posted on 12/07/2020 3:54:18 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

T post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So0ZrTwf8vI


12 posted on 12/07/2020 3:54:47 PM PST by PGalt (Past Peak Civilization?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

I agree. They basically used the deadline in Bush v. Gore to shut down the never-ending recounts, saying that there wasn’t time to do yet another before the deadline, but this is so much more than a counting battle. This is fraud writ very large, if the accusations are correct, and merit more consideration than Gore did in 2000.


13 posted on 12/07/2020 3:56:10 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

What about Roberts? I believe the left must have something on him.


14 posted on 12/07/2020 3:56:59 PM PST by doc maverick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

Heads we win, tails they lose.


15 posted on 12/07/2020 3:58:02 PM PST by PGalt (Past Peak Civilization?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc maverick

With the addition of ACB, it now no longer matters if Roberts sides with the left (which in fact might cause him to vote right more often because it should matter less often). But.....Kavanaugh may be shaky, and if he is, he and Robert together can reestablish the natural [crooked] balance of the court. Why are there always just enough traitors to conservatism?? :(


16 posted on 12/07/2020 3:59:24 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Osagegirl

Correct, and I suppose they can do whatever they please ala Roberts and Obamacare.

Either the SC rights the ship of state or they sink with it. The left is 100% nihilists. They look human but are devoids. They are not like decent people. I mean really, who in their right mind could ever conclude that people that are OK with killing humans in the womb or even shortly after birth could give a damn about vote stealing?

Trump was put where he is by God.


17 posted on 12/07/2020 3:59:35 PM PST by isthisnickcool (1218 - NEVER FORGET!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doc maverick

Roberts is stuck in a corner by two forces. He can figure a way out if he wants to.


18 posted on 12/07/2020 4:01:04 PM PST by isthisnickcool (1218 - NEVER FORGET!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

“Shall be conclusive” means that the U.S. Congress will accept it. It can still change after that, but the US Congress reserves the right to reassess. It’s not an actual deadline. It’s a deadline for no ordinary consequences.


19 posted on 12/07/2020 4:03:23 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

At least one thing the Supreme Court has to decide is whether or not certain states electors are valid if the state violated its own constitution “by laws enacted” to choose them. I think due process and equal protection would come into play here.


20 posted on 12/07/2020 4:03:47 PM PST by eastexsteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson