Report: Republicans Plan to Appoint Electors if Vote Results Delayed

[mystery-ak]

Joel B. Pollak 23 Sep 2020

The Atlantic reported Wednesday that Republicans are investigating contingency plans in which Republican-held legislatures would appoint members of the Electoral College if their states’ voting results were still in doubt weeks after Election Day.

Barton Gellman wrote: “According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.”

Gellman provided a sinister spin: “With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.”

Hollywood celebrities expressed their alarm, warning that the Atlantic article proves Trump plans to become a “dictator”:

more
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/23/report-republicans-plan-to-appoint-electors-if-vote-results-delayed/

[Idiot]

Joel B. Pollak 23 Sep 2020

The Atlantic reported Wednesday that Republicans are investigating contingency plans in which Republican-held legislatures would appoint members of the Electoral College if their states’ voting results were still in doubt weeks after Election Day.

Barton Gellman wrote: “According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.”

Gellman provided a sinister spin: “With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.”

Hollywood celebrities expressed their alarm, warning that the Atlantic article proves Trump plans to become a “dictator”:

more
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/23/report-republicans-plan-to-appoint-electors-if-vote-results-delayed/

Even if this is the case, it will be in the courts for weeks or months.

[RedHead]

Joel B. Pollak 23 Sep 2020

The Atlantic reported Wednesday that Republicans are investigating contingency plans in which Republican-held legislatures would appoint members of the Electoral College if their states’ voting results were still in doubt weeks after Election Day.

Define 'in doubt'.  I fully expect that every state will announce their results within a few days of November 3rd.  Then what?  If Trump wins and Biden files suit, claiming voter suppression or whatever, then how does he prove it?   Conversely, if Biden wins and Trump files suit claiming voter fraud then how does he prove that?  It's been four years and his Justice Department hasn't charged anyone with vote fraud from 2016 or 2018 that I'm aware of.  How does he come up with enough evidence of fraud to support his case within a few days?   Courts are not going to let this drag out.  They're under a timeline and will make their rulings fairly rapidly.  I just don't see a situation where the results will be in question long enough to require state legislature intevention.

[Fishrrman]

potato head wrote:
"Even if this is the case, it will be in the courts for weeks or months."

NO.

The electoral college meets on December 14 or 15 (not sure which date this time around).

Any state that does not present its electors by that date will be IGNORED in the final count as per the requirements of the Constitution.

So... if a state is to "have its vote count" in the presidential contest, it must present those electors by the date above.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly demand that electors be chosen by "an election of the people". It leaves how they'll be chosen up to the individual state legislatures (governors have no say - ZERO).

If the election results aren't known by mid-December, the state legislatures are going to have to decide -- either:
- stop the counting and determine (by a vote OF the legislature) which candidate the state will send electors for
or
- do nothing, and LOSE its electors altogether (see above).

I'll predict that if one or more states fails to send electors to the Electoral College by December 15, that the Supreme Court IS NOT going to intervene on behalf of those states to "resurrect" the "dead electors". Those states will "lose their voice" in the election. This is in accordance to the Constitution.

However... if one or more states fails to present electors, I predict there will then be a Constitutional battle over what number of the remaining, voting electors will "constitute a majority" by which the presidency can be won.

If, for example, California (with 55 electors) fails to certify its electors in time, that would leave a total of 480 electors left.
Would "a majority" then consist of 241 (50% of the 480 voting electors + 1), or would it still be 270?

THAT is "the question" that the Supreme Court will be asked to decide.

But one way or the other, the presidential election is not going to "drag on" for months.

That's how I see it, and that's how I'm callin' it.

[Cyber Liberty]

potato head wrote:
"Even if this is the case, it will be in the courts for weeks or months."

NO.

The electoral college meets on December 14 or 15 (not sure which date this time around).

Any state that does not present its electors by that date will be IGNORED in the final count as per the requirements of the Constitution.

So... if a state is to "have its vote count" in the presidential contest, it must present those electors by the date above.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly demand that electors be chosen by "an election of the people". It leaves how they'll be chosen up to the individual state legislatures (governors have no say - ZERO).

If the election results aren't known by mid-December, the state legislatures are going to have to decide -- either:
- stop the counting and determine (by a vote OF the legislature) which candidate the state will send electors for
or
- do nothing, and LOSE its electors altogether (see above).

I'll predict that if one or more states fails to send electors to the Electoral College by December 15, that the Supreme Court IS NOT going to intervene on behalf of those states to "resurrect" the "dead electors". Those states will "lose their voice" in the election. This is in accordance to the Constitution.

However... if one or more states fails to present electors, I predict there will then be a Constitutional battle over what number of the remaining, voting electors will "constitute a majority" by which the presidency can be won.

If, for example, California (with 55 electors) fails to certify its electors in time, that would leave a total of 480 electors left.
Would "a majority" then consist of 241 (50% of the 480 voting electors + 1), or would it still be 270?

THAT is "the question" that the Supreme Court will be asked to decide.

But one way or the other, the presidential election is not going to "drag on" for months.

That's how I see it, and that's how I'm callin' it.

"Doesn't count" means the votes don't count.  It's clear.  If Cali decides to throw their Electoral Votes away because of bickering, it's too damned bad.  This shit was litigated in November-December 2000, and there's SCOTUS precedent.  A 9-0 vote.