Posted on 10/24/2020 3:10:35 PM PDT by doug from upland
HARRISBURG — Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan newsroom powered by The Philadelphia Inquirer in partnership with PennLive/The Patriot-News, TribLIVE/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and WITF Public Media. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter.
It is the nightmare scenario Pennsylvania election officials have fretted over for months: a knock-down, drag-out fight over which presidential candidate will win the state and snag its coveted electoral votes. Advertisement 01:10 05:37
Now, the head of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania has fueled fears of chaos after Election Day, raising the specter that his party could break with tradition and allow the GOP-controlled Legislature to choose a slate of presidential electors to cast the state’s votes for Donald Trump — even if the president doesn’t win the popular vote.
In comments to The Atlantic made public this week, state Republican Chairman Lawrence Tabas suggested that he had spoken with Trump campaign officials about the possibility of bypassing the results of the popular vote, should there be uncertainty or disputes over the validity of ballots cast. The U.S. Constitution, Tabas said, allows state legislatures to choose presidential electors.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
DeRoberts the fraud vote after Election Day. The signature issue gives them a 2nd chance at SCOTUS
I really don’t know what goes on in PA. Bernie Sanders and Angus King are independent US senators that get their committee assignments from the Rat party—which they support. I imagine it’s the same sort of thing in the PA situation.
+1
Bush's lawsuit was a nonjusticeable political question. Article II and Amendment XII provided all the resources necessary for the election to be resolved without the involvement of the courts.
There was NO POSSIBLE WAY Al Gore Jr. could have become President had the Constitution been followed. There was a slight possibility that Joe Lieberman would have been elected Vice President 51-50 by the Senate IF the Special Joint Session had discarded both slates of Florida electors.
As it was, the already too broad reach of the Supreme Court was expanded further, for no good purpose.
No court has the authority to overrule the State Legislature's appointment of Electors.
“I am curious about the Penn legislature. Would it be subject to a veto by the Gov, or would he have a say? Isn’t it remarkable how the founding fathers set up government that seems to anticipate all the problems we have had!”
The Constitution give the Legislature the right to decide how the electors are chosen - the governor has no constitutional role, so his signature is not required and a veto is not possible.
“Even in the extraordinarily unusual scenario where this could happen under relatively legitimate circumstances, the PA supreme court would overrule it.”
The state Supreme Court would have no say and would get summarily slapped down by SCOTUS. As with the governor, the Constitution gives no role to state courts in awarding the electors.
“I’ve heard this argument but I presume the PA legislature has already decided how the state picks its electors and written it into law.
The PA constitution also probably dictates how that law can be amended/changed.”
A quick search shows that there is a law currently in place, but that the state constitution is silent on the matter. I also think the Supremacy Clause and a strict reading of the Constitution would come into play, in that a state law or statute cannot override the Federal Constitution by adding any prohibitions to the Legislature’s ability to award the electors as they see fit. Remember, the ones who would decide this would be Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett - Roberts would not be a factor.
I couldn’t agree with you more
Right, but if the legislature chose how to award electors and memorialized it via statute can they then ignore that statute and be OK under the state constitution?
I think the problem is at the state level and an action by the legislature that violates the state’s constitution would be hard for SCOTUS to endorse.
The legislature can chose however they want but only within the confines of the state’s constitution that gives them their authority.
That constitution is the only thing giving them legitimacy.
Well Tabas doesn't say that - the Constitution says that.
It was also confirmed during the Supreme Court arguments - in the first case the Supreme Court heard, titled Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor asked the attorney for the Palm Beach County County Board “I suppose the (Constitution) givens the legislature a choice - it could itself appoint the Electors” to which he answered “Yes, we agree with that.” I’m paraphrasing as it has been 20 years but that was my recollection.
I want to start by noting that I'm not saying this because I disagree with the way the constitution is laid out, I think that bit is clear. I am disagreeing because the left will only point to the constitution when they think it will help advance their cause.
The dems aren't playing by a rulebook, they're angling for an outcome.
If the election comes down to Pennsylvania in enough turmoil with its vote count that the legislature steps in and awards electors, it won't matter that the USSC will smack down the PA Supreme Court. The effect will be that everyone on the left will have its reason to treat the election as illegitimate and rebel openly.
The only way to get a "good" outcome for conservatism, freedom, the good guys, whatever you want to call it... is for Trump to win in a manner so convincingly that it's outside the boundaries of fraud or obfuscation.
I doubt that will happen, but I'm willing to be wrong. Likely it's going to be fought at every front and from every angle, and whatever feelings people have about Trump, he doesn't shirk away from a fight.
If Philadelphia districts can go from 30% to 106% turnout, and 0 Republican votes, why stop there? Why not 200%, 1000%, 10000%? There is no consequence after all.
Your analysis is correct, but your conclusions are suspect.
PA has 61 red counties and 7 blue counties so we are almost always going to win more seats than the demonRATs.
The 8-9 available votes would be an almost pubbie guarantee and in the worst case the state would be split, not like today, with 20 votes riding on the cheating that is going on in philly and pburgh.
I'd rather have 6-9 votes in the bank than have to roll the dice on how many dead people get out of the grave in philly.
If you had a choice today, would you take the 9 guaranteed votes in PA and give up the 11 or would you take a chance on voter fraud and lose the entire 20?
As long as both houses of the state legislature agree, I don’t see where SCOTUS would have a problem. It is a well established principle that a legislature cannot bind or restrict a subsequent legislature from exercising its power. So even if a previous legislature passed a law saying the electors can only be chosen in a certain way, that cannot bind a current legislature, and they would be able to change that with a simple majority vote.
Not if the state constitution says laws have to be signed by the governor.
They may try to ignore the existing law but the constitution dictates how new laws are made.
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.