Read on Twitter
1/This piece says if Repubs keep objecting in Congress 1/6 session it's "possible, though unlikely, that the business of counting the votes wouldn’t be concluded in five days, at which point the Electoral Count Act says that the recesses for debating objections to votes must end" https://twitter.com/NewYorker/status/1346170771438264323
2/ The joint session of Congress does not go into "recess" to debate objections, however, but rather "dissolves." A recess is only when Congress is done with its business for the day. Even when Congress is barred from taking recesses, it may still dissolve to vote on objections.
3/ In other words, the Electoral Count Act ("ECA") doesn't state that "recesses for debating objections . . . must end" after five days.
4/ The @NewYorker piece also contends that, after 5 days, Biden may not have 270 electoral votes, and "Republicans might attempt a maneuver to abuse the process provided in federal law, by insisting on reverting to the [12th] Amendment's" provisions for contingent House elections
5/ The piece claims that, if Republicans force the election to the House, Trump might win because the House votes by state delegation, and there are more Republican delegations.
6/ Again, the piece misapprehends the ECA & 12th amd. A contingent election can't occur in the House of reps until the counting of electoral votes in the joint session of Congress is complete. A contingent election isn't triggered just b/c the joint session is delayed/extended
7/ Indeed, in a contingent election, the House is permitted to vote only for the top three vote-getters in the electoral college. If the electoral count isn't complete, the list of eligible candidates for the House to vote upon can't be officially determined.
8/ In the extreme, patently unrealistic case that the electoral count were not resolved by noon on Jan. 20, the Presidency and Vice Presidency would be vacant, and under the 20th Amendment the Speaker would become Acting President until Congress concluded counting electoral votes
9/ In short, in my opinion, the New Yorker article is contrary to the ECA & 12th Amd. It posits a scenario that's flatly inconsistent with clear aspects of these statutes. Despite the article's claims, it is not "possible to even envision such an unlikely calamity occurring."
10/ I also agree with @derektmuller's analysis of this issue. https://twitter.com/derektmuller/status/1346284989009309697
