Read on Twitter
I’m hearing a lot of confusion about these references, so here’s a short explainer:
People in states vote. State election officials are responsible for counting and certifying the vote. State officials are responsible for sending a slate of electors to the Electoral College.
1/ https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1322625856678879233
People in states vote. State election officials are responsible for counting and certifying the vote. State officials are responsible for sending a slate of electors to the Electoral College.
1/ https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1322625856678879233
(The Electoral College isn’t actually a place - the electors just go to their state capitols to cast their ballots)
Now, technically, the slate of electors is supposed to be determined by the state-wide vote, but you may have heard the president suggest that some states could send slates of R electors at their own discretion, if they think the election results are somehow problematic.
2/
2/
Here is where things start getting tricky. Sometimes the votes in counties/states are very close. Within the margin of human or machine error. So the losing side will usually call for a recount. Some states have automatic recounts for any margin smaller than a certain %
3/
3/
Recounts take time. They have to stop at some point. WHEN they stop (or are stopped) matters a lot.
Remember that.
Ok, back to votes.
4/
Remember that.
Ok, back to votes.
4/
Once the electors have cast their ballots, the ballots are sent to Congress (this year, by Dec 23rd).
There, they are counted and the results certified by Congress (this year on 6 January), then the president is inaugurated on January 20th.
Easy, right?
5/
There, they are counted and the results certified by Congress (this year on 6 January), then the president is inaugurated on January 20th.
Easy, right?
5/
BUT, if neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives decides the outcome. Technically they’re just supposed to vote, but they can (and have) set up smaller commissions to examine any questions associated with the vote (see: 1876).
6/
6/
So why does the president keep talking about the Supreme Court making the election go his way?
It’s all about counting the votes at the state level.
7/
It’s all about counting the votes at the state level.
7/
We’re already seeing cases on how voting can be allowed (does the state legislature have to set up the rules, or can it be done by exec branch officials?), how ballots will be counted (do they have to arrive by a certain time or just be postmarked? What about unclear ballots?)
8/
8/
We are likely to see recounts happen in several counties/states if they are close. Then these questions of which ballots count, and how many times they should be recounted, will matter a lot.
And they will be decided by courts.
And they may make it to SCOTUS.
9/
And they will be decided by courts.
And they may make it to SCOTUS.
9/
What happened in 2000 was not that SCOTUS “decided” the presidential election the way the House would in case of a tie; they decided to stop a recount in progress, which meant that the previous count stood, which awarded FL’s electoral votes to Bush, handing him the win.
10/
10/
In short: when the president talks about SCOTUS assuring him the win, he is talking about a larger strategy of contesting the vote counts/vote validity at the county/state level.
End/
End/
ppl are already asking: what is “safe harbor”?
It’s (this yr: 8 Dec) the point AFTER WHICH Cong may challenge electors named by the state. So, if the state has a hard count w/ challenges and names its electors late, Cong could challenge those choices if it came down to them.
It’s (this yr: 8 Dec) the point AFTER WHICH Cong may challenge electors named by the state. So, if the state has a hard count w/ challenges and names its electors late, Cong could challenge those choices if it came down to them.
Again, 1876 is our fun ex: some states submitted *competing* slates of electors, and Congress had to decide which ones to consider valid. They did (10 yrs later) pass a law after this to clear things up, but it’s never been used, so no one really knows how it would work.
Also important: the new Congress is sworn in on 3 January, so IF the EC vote is problematic, it will be the NEW Congress making the decision about who wins.
But again: the courts approach is specifically designed to AVOID having the issue go to the House. If the vote counts can be manipulated such that the EC count is clear, then the question does not come up for the House.
