That 1 Rep/1 Senator contesting elections provision

[gulogulo]

can someone point out where in the Constitution this is? I scanned it quickly and could not find it.

[Fiona]

1. It's not in the constitution

it's a law from 1877, I believe.

[quiet.american]

2. U.S. Code/Presidential Elections

Check this out from:

UNITED STATES CODE

The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are
contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672,
as amended):

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/provisions.html#provisions


Same; seats for officers and members of two houses in joint
meeting

§ 16. At such joint meeting of the two Houses seats shall be
provided as follows: For the President of the Senate, the Speaker's
chair; for the Speaker, immediately upon his left; the Senators, in
the body of the Hall upon the right of the presiding officer; for
the Representatives, in the body of the Hall not provided for the
Senators; for the tellers, Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the
House of Representatives, at the Clerk's desk; for the other
officers of the two Houses, in front of the Clerk's desk and upon
each side of the Speaker's platform. Such joint meeting shall not
be dissolved until the count of electoral votes shall be completed
and the result declared; and no recess shall be taken unless a
question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or
otherwise under this subchapter, in which case it shall be competent
for either House, acting separately, in the manner hereinbefore
provided, to direct a recess of such House not beyond the next
calendar day, Sunday excepted, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the
forenoon. But if the counting of the electoral votes and the
declaration of the result shall not have been completed before the
fifth calendar day next after such first meeting of the two Houses,
no further or other recess shall be taken by either House.

Same; limit of debate in each house

§ 17. When the two Houses separate to decide upon an
objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral
vote or votes from any State, or other question arising in the
matter, each Senator and Representative may speak to such
objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but
after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty
of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question
without further debate.

[gulogulo]

3. thanks for the URL - the part that I was interested in was this:

Counting electoral votes in congress

§ 15.

...
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

===========================

Interesting. If I understand this correctly (and wow, can the language be any more convoluted?) if 1Rep/1Sen object, the houses will adjourn, discuss, and either accept or reject the objection. If they reject the objection, the counting will continue and the electors will be counted. I see also that, since only one group of electors will be sent from each state, the house/senate can either accept or reject those electors, but cannot substitute electors for another candidate for the rejected group. Right?

[IndyPriest]

4. No. The paragraph you cited assumes the possibility

that there may be more than one set of electors sent from a state. The congress must determine which of the two (or three?) sets is legit.

[Doctor O]

5. It also means that he possiblity of * electors not being accepted

requires both houses to reject them.
Hmmm let me see Senate has a Rep majority
House has a Rep majority.

Anyone see how * loses

[Melissa G]

6. It does edge upon the * mandate bull****

And it was unconscionable that not one Senator had the Gonads to sand with the Black reps the last time... more reps of every color should have also stood the last time.

[IndyPriest]

7. Hey, Doc, get the right context, and see it differently

If the situation in this paragraph exists, it's because either the OH Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court will have ruled that the OH election was not legit, and so the first electors are not legit. In THAT context, with the whole world watching, I think it'll be VERY hard for even the congressional repubs to pull the lever for Bush. They will be admitting to fraud in broad daylight. They'd never win another election in 100 years.

[gulogulo]

10. Indy, read the text - your "context" is incorrect. n/t

[jdog]

8. When would that happen? I don't get it.

(sorry if I'm being thick)

[gulogulo]

9. Indy - so far there are no multiple elector delegations

so that possibility is moot...

[IndyPriest]

11. Right you are -- so far!

But what do you think's on the way with Arnebeck's suit?

[gulogulo]

13. Let's say it like this

I will give you 20:1 odds that Arnebeck's suit will not result in sending the second delegation of electors to Washington. For that you would need hard proof - that is, physical evidence of fraud of a confession out of one of the perpetrators. Don't see any of that happening.

[George W. Hayduke]

12. check this out also

Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540

Memorandum

November 17, 2000

SUBJECT : Overview of Electoral College Procedure and the Role of Congress

FROM : Stanley Bach, Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process Government and Finance Division
Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

This memorandum responds to numerous congressional requests for information on the presidential electoral vote process and the role of Congress in that process. The memorandum identifies the primary stages, requirements, and procedures for casting and counting electoral votes for the election of the President and Vice President. This process in most cases has been uneventful and noncontroversial. In the context of the 2000 presidential election, however, there has been speculation about a number of possibilities for which there may be no judicial or congressional precedent.

Because of the absence of specific and persuasive authority on some issues, and in light of the time frame in which this information has been requested to be presented, this memorandum attempts to at least identify and present some of the possible issues and questions which have been raised, even when not necessarily resolving them by reference to authoritative source material or decisions. The topics presented are arranged in the approximate order of their occurrence.

Much of what follows in this memorandum is based on the United States Constitution and on a federal law enacted in 1887 and amended in 1948, now codified in Title 3 of the United States Code. Reference is also made to congressional precedent and practice. Early congressional precedents on the counting of electoral votes, which may be found in Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, are sometimes inconsistent with each other and with more recent practice. This record, coupled with the events of 1877, provided the impetus for codifying procedure in the 1887 law. Precedents which predate the 1887 Act may be primarily of historical significance, particularly to the extent that they are inconsistent with express provisions of the 1887 Act, as amended.

-----------------------

that's just the introduction. The entirety of this overview is at:

http://www.house.gov/cha/electoralcollege/electoralcollege.html