Question. Does every state have there own rules on how their elections are run?

[bluestarone]

I mean could each and very state decide if they want to count their own votes, or use machines and let machines count the votes? I worry that a third of the states (you now which ones i'm talking about) kicks Dominion out. I could see them doing this to just cause disruption and delays!!

[jimfields33]

1. Yes. Actually they can run them as they please.

[bluestarone]

2. Worries me, considering what's happening in our country now.

[jimfields33]

6. True. Most will continue to do as always.

Luckily our states that have a republican state legislature all have democratic governors. Michigan, Pennsylvania and others.

[MagickMuffin]

3. There are federal laws to protect voters rights, but elections are run by the state

Unfortunately, who ever is in power at the state level can also pass laws prohibiting voting by certain groups of people.


Voter ID laws, purging voters from the rolls. On and on the story remains the same.

[bluestarone]

4. Yea, looking at what Texas and Florida could pull off is SCARY!

I know we'll NEVER win there BUT, I just hope these type states cannot pull something that messes with national outcome. Counting votes could be the NEXT attack coming.

[Ocelot II]

5. Yes. Election processes are determined by each state per the Constitution.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, referred to as the Elections Clause, contemplates that state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations (except as to the place of choosing Senators). The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns. The Court has further recognized the states’ ability to establish sanctions for violating election laws as well as authority over recounts and primaries. The Elections Clause, however, does not govern voter qualifications, which under Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment must be the same as the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislatures. Similarly, the authority of states to establish the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives does not include authority to impose additional qualification requirements to be a Member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, which are governed by the Constitution’s Qualification Clauses at Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for Members of the House and at Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 for the Senate.

More here: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/

[bluestarone]

8. Can i ask you're opinion on The Colorado SC decision?

If states can decide their election system, then why can the SC over rule (if they do)the Colorado state SC? I would think the STATE has made a state decision here?

[Ocelot II]

10. I haven't read it yet, but what's going on in several states

is that courts are deciding issues of their state's election laws - mostly the issue of who gets to decide and how. But the Supreme Court can review issues decided in states if they involve the US Constitution. Whether a candidate for a federal office can be kept off a ballot is a question of interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which says "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." So what's going on is that state courts are deciding how the decision can be made to keep a candidate off a ballot under state law, but the Supreme Court will eventually decide whether the 14th Amendment applies to a presidential candidate (is he included as an "officer of the United States" since the office of president is not specifically mentioned?), and if so, whether he has to be convicted of the crime of insurrection, or is the clause self-executing, as Tribe and Luttig claim?

[bluestarone]

11. TY So if the SC rules for Colorado, It's OVER for TFG.

No further appeals. If the SC rules AGAINST Colorado, NO OTHER state can remove his name. Correct? TY in advance!

[gab13by13]

7. Yup,

we don't have early voting in Pennsylvania, and only within the past several years have we been allowed to absentee vote without an excuse.