Could Republicans ignore the popular vote and choose their own pro-Trump electors?

[mysteryowl]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/25/trump-attack-election-electors-republicans

Republicans are reportedly considering the possibility of asking state legislatures to ignore the will of the popular vote and appoint electors favorable to the president. Trump also declined to say whether he would accept a peaceful transfer of power this week, comments that many Republicans distanced themselves from. Trump said he needs to place a new supreme court justice in place to resolve election disputes.

The US constitution gives state legislatures the authority to appoint the 538 electors to the electoral college who ultimately elect the president. States have long used the winner of the popular vote to determine who gets the electoral votes in their states, but Republicans anonymously told the Atlantic the campaign has discussed the possibility of using delays in the vote count as a basis to ask Republican-controlled legislatures to appoint their own electors, regardless of the final vote tally.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” a Trump campaign legal adviser told the Atlantic.

____________________________________________________________

Add abolishing electors to our long list of changes when we take power.

[qazplm135]

1. In theory, yes

But this scheme only works in practice if one or two states flip in a very close election AND both houses of the new Congress are Republican.

A half dozen states aren't going to do this, and winning the Senate stops this as well.

Voting by our side renders this moot.

[Trumpocalypse]

12. The states would also have to have a Republican Governor

Who agrees to change the state law on how electors are selected.

[qazplm135]

15. No

Congress decides, period.

Republican legislature sends it slate
Dem governor says, you can't do that
Legislature says, we did it
Dem Gov says Congress, that slate is illegal use my proper slate.

Congress decides, the end.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. I refer you to MineralMan's post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14132488

[qazplm135]

17. Which does not respond

To the fact I laid out at all.

What's the mechanism for stopping them sending a slate of electors? You going to arrest the legislature?? The electors?

The only thing stopping it is a blue wave or taking the Senate.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. Yes it does

The process for selecting electors is set by law. Legislatures would have to vote to change those laws and would be have to be signed by the state's Governor.

[qazplm135]

19. Lol no they wont

They'll just fucking send a slate anyways.

Then Congress will decide.

What, you think the entire legislature is going to be arrested?

[Trumpocalypse]

20. They can't

They won’t be arrested but they can’t legally do it. Let’s deal with facts not Qannon like conspiracy theories.

[qazplm135]

21. lmao

right, just like Trump can't violate the Emoulments Clause.
It's not legal!!

Just like they can't violate the Hatch Act.
It's not legal!!

Those must have been conspiracy theories too.

Hundreds of experts in this area disagree with you, but because you either can't or won't understand some simple things, it's a Qanon conspiracy theory.

Ok then, this is where I stop wasting my time with you.

[Trumpocalypse]

22. I understand that there are laws

And they can’t violate those laws on a whim. They either have to change those laws which would require the Democratic Governors in their states to agree. And who are these hundreds of experts?

[qazplm135]

23. of course they can violate those laws

I'll ask again for the hundredth time...what do you think happens to them if they "violate the law?"

Do you think they will be arrested? Charged with a crime? Jailed?

And who are the experts?? Have you turned off TV? The internet?

Biden's campaign is most certainly preparing for it and talking about it.

Is he an idiot? A fool?

[Trumpocalypse]

24. No don't be ridiculous

But any slate of electors appointed over what is prescribed by law will have no legal standing. Also, the constitution doesn’t give the state legislatures the power to select electors only the power to decide the manner in which the electors are selected which is by a popular vote by the people in their state. That is the law.

[qazplm135]

25. let's try this again slowly

what entity decides which slate of electors has "legal standing?"

There's only one answer, and it's pretty clear, and it has nothing to do with the laws of any state.

[Trumpocalypse]

26. Yes only one answer

the slate of electors selected as proscribed by that state’s laws. Anything else is nonsense.

Lawrence O’Donnell discussed this last night: https://www.nbc.com/the-last-word-with-lawrence-odonnell/video/last-word-92420/4228003

[qazplm135]

28. the slate of electors are approved by what entity?

You know the answer to this, so there's only one reason why you won't say it.

[Trumpocalypse]

30. The state's legislative

and all they can do is certify the results of the election. If they don’t certify no electors are sent and won’t be counted. That is all they have the power to do. They can’t certify a different slate of electors than those prescribed by their state’s laws.

[qazplm135]

31. lol

then why does Congress meet on January 6th?

What do they DO on that day?

[Trumpocalypse]

33. Because it's a Wednesday

and Wednesday is Sundae at Carvel.

[qazplm135]

34. see

this is how I know you are BSing.

I'm done with you.

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Nothing I said was BS

State legislatures don't have the power to select electors only the power to chose the manner in which electors are selected.

The manner electors are selected are prescribed by each state's laws. State legislatures can't change those laws without the agreement of their state's Governors.

They cannot select a different slate of electors. They only have the power to certify or not certify the results of the election. If they don't certify, no electors are sent and are not included in the final count.

And finally, Wednesday is Sundae at Carvel. They've been doing that promotion for decades.

[qazplm135]

36. Hi, I'm the PA republican legislature

Congress, here's an alternate slate of electors for you to consider.

Congress, ok, thanks got it, we will decide it, because we are literally the only ones with that power and there's no appeal to our decision.

Trumpocalypse: But PA law says you can't do it!

Congress: Yeah, we'll decide which slate is lawful, thanks.

Trump cannot profit from his office. But he does. It must be magic to you.

[Trumpocalypse]

38. Fantasy

Last edited Sat Sep 26, 2020, 08:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Try reality for a change.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214132494#post1

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. It's possible that Pence, as Senate Presidenot, would be the arbiter of which slate of electors...

... to count.

I mean republicans wouldn’t be this craven, would they? And surely The Supreme Court and the new justice with Michelle Bachman eyes would do the right thing? Or are we still under the impression mit Romney and Chuck Grassley will do the right thing?


https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj

There is absolutely no guarantee, however, that a disputed presidential election in 2020 would not reach Congress. Indeed, as explained above, the analysis here is premised on the assumption that Trump easily could take a dispute over an outcome-determinative blue shift in the overtime count all the way to Congress. Trump could do so by having the state legislature send a second certificate of electoral vote, ones supporting him, to “compete” in Congress against a conflicting certificate of electoral votes from the same state, these other ones supporting his Democratic opponent based on the blue shift count in overtime. Thus, as part of an effort to prepare for the risk of a disputed presidential election in 2020, it is imperative to consider how the embarrassingly deficient procedures might operate if they were actually called into play.

The Constitution itself says remarkably little relevant to this topic, and what it does say is shockingly ambiguous. Here is the applicable text of the Twelfth Amendment:

[T]he President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—
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; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.33
The first thing to observe about this constitutional language is that the critical sentence is written in the passive voice: “the votes shall then be counted.” Here, thus, is the first frustrating ambiguity. It could be the “President of the Senate” who does the counting; or, after the President of the Senate has finished the role of “open[ing] the certificates” then the whole Congress, in this special joint session, collectively counts the electoral votes.
Either way, this language contains no provision for what to do in the event of a dispute, whether with respect to the “certificates” to be “open[ed]” or with respect to the “votes” contained therein. It certainly says nothing about what to do if the President of the Senate has received two conflicting certificates of electoral votes from the same state, each certificate purporting to come from the state’s authoritatively appointed electors. As the distinguished jurist Joseph Story observed early in the nineteenth century, this crucial constitutional language in the Twelfth Amendment appears to have been written without imaging that it might ever be possible for this sort of dispute to arise.34

[qazplm135]

29. in theory yes...

but if we get 51 senators we are straight.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. Agree.

The biggest threat is still Election Day interference. Then canvassing interference.

I may sign up to be a poll watcher.

[beachbumbob]

2. possible? maybe? likely? NOPE

defying the will of the voters brings huge ramifications in subsequent elections

[mysteryowl]

4. Republicans are ruthless, this is the key point and I would not put it past them.

Time for Dems to be ruthless as well.

[beachbumbob]

7. like I said, anything is possible but the outcome will be terrible for them

ALL THIS TALK and subject matter is straight out of the Kremlin playbook to create doubt and instill lack of confidence. We need to stop helping the Kremlin

[liberal N proud]

3. republicans must know this is their last chance to hold power

They act like the end is near for them with all these efforts to fight the coming change.


They might very well fear they are doomed as a viable political power.

[Zorro]

5. It would be open season on every Republican officeholder if they tried this

[Hoyt]

6. Not something I'm concerned about.

[MineralMan]

8. Most states, if not all, have laws regarding this.

It's not really a concern for the 2020 election.

For summary of those laws, see the pdf file at this link:

https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-08/summary-electoral-college-laws-aug2020_0.pdf

A simple Google search was all I needed to find it.

[Trumpocalypse]

13. Thanks MineralMan

For citing facts.

[Demsrule86]

9. Not this year or most years...we have Democratic governors in

Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...not to mention North Carolina. And defying your state popular vote could get pols kicked out in two years or four years.

[moose65]

10. That's our safeguard

I assume that the method of choosing electors is codified in state law. To change that requires changing the law, and no Democratic governor would sign a law like that.

[qazplm135]

39. redistricting means

no, not that many would get kicked out if it resulted in four more years of Trump.

The red districts would be just fine. A few purple ones would go sure, but if they can trade that for four more years of Trump, they would.

But you have at least correctly identified the issue is not that "state law says you can't do it" but the dangers politically of usurping the state popular vote.

[FBaggins]

11. No

The US constitution gives state legislatures the authority to appoint the 538 electors to the electoral college who ultimately elect the president.

No, it doesn't... at least, not in the way implied in the article.

[skip fox]

14. Perhaps in some states this will work and in others he will have different means

of ignoring the will of the people: thugs outside of polling places, lawyers from DOJ contesting ballots, etc.

It doesn't have to be one-size-fits-all.

[Tarc]

37. Silly fearmongering that is getting tiring

[Demsrule86]

40. No, it will not happen. The GOP legislature would have to pass a new law...and in a number of key

states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina, we have Democratic governors. I don't think De Santis or even Kemp would do this...they have win election at some point. But it really doesn't matter. I believe we will win on election night.

[SKKY]

41. Kemp would do it in a flat second.