Read on Twitter
Debunking time, boys and girls. This stupid idea has surfaced again, and though I've done this before, I'll do it again. This entire idea is extremely unlikely to work. 1/
Though I should caution, based on a recent thread by election-law expert Rick Hasen, that the risk of such a scheme being attempted, though small, does exist. 1A/ https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1309143625268330497?s=20
State legislatures can't change their states' methods of choosing electors after the election. Article II of the Constitution notwithstanding, state laws have long since codified, in detail, the means by which electors are chosen: in almost every case it's the popular vote. 2/
State legislatures cannot change the method of choosing electors after the election is over. Federal election law does not allow it. Furthermore, their responsibility ends with certifying the vote and sending the results to their respective governors. 3/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/25/trump-attack-election-electors-republicans
“But what about ‘dueling slates’ of electors?” You mean like in 1876? That debacle is why we now have laws specifically to prevent it from ever happening again. 4/
This and the next excerpt are from the link at end of this thread:
This and the next excerpt are from the link at end of this thread:
The responsibility and explicit RIGHT to transmit slates of electors to Congress rests with the governors, NOT the legislatures. There CAN'T be competing slates of electors. Only those sent by the governors are valid, by federal law (specifically, 3 USC § 1). 5/
8 of 9 swing states have Democratic governors who won't let their state laws to be ignored, nor permit their authority to be usurped. Congress, in turn, is bound by federal law to accept only slates submitted by the governors. No other slates are legally valid. 6/
“But what if the GOP does it anyway?” It might not go the way they hope.
The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 gives the Speaker of the House broad powers to deal with crises such as this. 7/
The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 gives the Speaker of the House broad powers to deal with crises such as this. 7/
Nancy Pelosi would be within her rights, under the Rules of the House and the 1969 FCEA, to refuse to seat delegations from states whose legislatures refused to certify the election results — because it would mean their own elections can't be certified, either. 8/
Also, while the Constitution specifies that the states get one vote as a delegation, nothing in the Constitution specifies which member of the delegation gets to cast that vote, or by what terms or standards. 9/
http://electiontaskforce.org/s/State_Legislature_Paper.pdf
http://electiontaskforce.org/s/State_Legislature_Paper.pdf
Speaker Pelosi would, again, under the 1969 FCEA, be within her powers and rights to select a foreman to vote on behalf of each state. If those she chooses happen to all or mostly be Democrats …?
Sorry, Donnie. Them's the rules. 10/
Sorry, Donnie. Them's the rules. 10/
Nullifying the vote isn't a viable tactic. One of Trump's campaign lawyers floated this idea in September to sow despair on the left, to make people think their votes won't matter. It's a psy-op tactic. Don't fall for it.
SOURCE: (read past the headline) https://takecareblog.com/blog/red-state-legislatures-cannot-cancel-the-upcoming-presidential-election
SOURCE: (read past the headline) https://takecareblog.com/blog/red-state-legislatures-cannot-cancel-the-upcoming-presidential-election
