Posted on 01/05/2021 3:11:15 PM PST by RandFan
More than 100 state legislators from contested battleground states have asked Vice President Mike Pence to delay by 10 days the congressional certification of the elections in their states so they can have more time to investigate irregularities and illegalities.
The dramatic requests, delivered in various letters on the eve of a joint session of Congress, added intrigue and drama to a process that normally is pro forma.
While Pence has said he supports lawmakers who are concerned about the conduct of the November election he has not indicated whether he’d be willing to go as far as delaying counting votes from states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania or whether such a manuever would be deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, the 11th hour letters from state legislator added to a growing momentum among Republicans to contest Joe Biden’s declared election victory.
“We write to ask you to comply with our reasonable request to afford our nation more time to properly review the 2020 election by postponing the January 6th opening and counting of the electoral votes for at least 10 days, affording our respective bodies to meet, investigate, and as a body vote on certification or decertification of the election,” one letter to Pence signed by 88 state Republican legislators read. “This action can be completed prior to the inauguration date, as required by the Constitution.”
That letter attached an appendix listing irregularities and illegalities in the battleground states where Trump has contested the election results showing Biden the winner.
The appendix, the lawmakers wrote, “provides evidence of a coordinated and structured multi-state effort to undermine state law protecting election integrity." ....
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
And that is what's going to happen tomorrow. But Pence can adjourn the meeting to complete its business on a later day if he finds that some electoral votes are untrustworthy. That should still meet the letter of the law.
If the law reasonably abridges the VP's and state legislature's constitutional powers, then yes they can and should.
But what gives him the authority to decide electoral votes are untrustworthy? Isn't that what the challenges are for? The law gives the power over those to the House and Senate.
If the law unreasonably abridges the VP's and state legislature's constitutional powers, then yes they can and should.
How does the law abridge the powers of the vice-president and the states?
l8r
The court held in their ruling (i.e. NOT in the footnotes):
"By establishing a particular day as "the day" on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the [522 U.S. 72] election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say."
"The Day" this last election was...
NOV 3.
That's..."the day" the election was supposed to be "consummated" or finished (i.e. results tabulated & known). Not before Nov 3. Not after Nov 3.
Not finished Oct 1, Not finished Oct 30, Not finished Nov 4, Not finished Nov 15th, NOT Dec 1st.
Nov 3rd.
Unfortunately, it’s not; if it were, it wouldn’t have overlooked decades of illegal immigration or agreed to things like the 1982 consent decree which denied its own base the right to contest elections, and GOP officials would never have made settlements this past year that made voter verification impossible. The rule of law is meaningless when it is toothless for a protected few.
The state legislators are saying that they need more time.
I haven't seen their request but it's not to hard to imagine that they are saying that gathering evidence on voter and election fraud takes a lot of time. These state legislators are letting us (and the VP) know that.
Certainly that's a reasonable request to allow them to perform their constitutional duty.
The challenges will include a summary of the evidence. That should provide sufficient grounds for a finding of likely untrustworthiness. Then each chamber will vote to punt on that, but the evidence will still be in front of the joint session. I think Pence can act on that rather than assume a purely ceremonial role.
There we go again, playing by rules that the left dont care about.
But under existing law the states all turned in their certified list of electors on time.
I haven't seen their request but it's not to hard to imagine that they are saying that gathering evidence on voter and election fraud takes a lot of time. These state legislators are letting us (and the VP) know that.
They've had nine weeks so far. And you're talking about a minority of legislators. What if another minority sends a letter saying the election was fine and the count should proceed?
I don't think that's correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act
The law was enacted ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks.[2] Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.[3] After years of discussion, Congress passed the Act in 1887 and has followed the Act’s procedures since then.[4]
The Act aims to minimize Congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[3][4] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these “safe harbor” standards and the state’s governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that “final” determination “shall govern.”[5][6] The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act’s procedures.[7] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not “regularly given.”[7][8]
The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[7] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[8] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[9] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law’s timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as “very confused, almost unintelligible.”[10]:643 Modern commenters have stated that the law “invites misinterpretation,” observing that it is “turgid and repetitious” and that “[i]ts central provisions seem contradictory.”[11]:543
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President opens the electoral certificates in his capacity as President of the Senate. The Act clarifies the Vice President’s limited role in the count.[3][7][8] Both houses can overrule the Vice President’s decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor’s certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party’s — or his own — defeat. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore and Joe Biden all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.
I do not think that the disputed states all met the safe harbor provisions mentioned above so may be subject to dispute.
Its wikipedia but it sounds about right.
The law does not over-ride the constitution which places responsibility directly in the hands of the state legislatures. If members of the legislatures claim that they have questions, who is to question them, and only a resolution of the whole legislature should be taken as evidence of the determination of the legislature.
You are claiming that votes cast on Election Day but not counted before midnight are invalid under federal law. That’s ridiculous.
Legislature has the power to determine how electors are selected but election-related dates are set by the federal government.
If members of the legislatures claim that they have questions, who is to question them, and only a resolution of the whole legislature should be taken as evidence of the determination of the legislature.
Unless and until the whole legislature selects an alternative slate of electors then the slate selected on election day in accordance with state law and certified by state authorities is the official one, and that gets counted tomorrow.
The SC that has ruled that no one has standing.
One of the problems that may be unconstitutional, is that it states that if there is disagreement, the Executive branch of the state’s electors are the ones to be counted.
That takes away the legislature’s plenary power. For example if the state legislator voted to send a different slate and the DemoKKKrat Gov. and SOS refused to sign the certification, then the slate chosen by the legislature would not be chosen under this act. Unconstitutional-but never challenged so it was not an issue till now.
In addition, some constitutional Lawyers contend that the VP has authority under the constitution that has been usurped under the act such as @ the link below:
(it’s a short 4 pages and not too much legalize). Advised reading ICYMI😊
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.