1) Congress is incentivized to see Pence's role as passive.

But Constitutional scholars differ and/or acknowledge that varying interpretations exist.

Note: I am NOT predicting what Pence will do. I will just be highlighting some ambiguities.

(Apologies - will be long thread)

2) Edward Foley is head of Election Law Dept at Ohio U.

He is Left & originator of Blue Shift theory

What follows are quotes from his "war-game" paper published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal - Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj

3) "As part of an effort to prepare for the risk of a disputed presidential election in 2020, it is imperative to consider how the embarrassingly deficient procedures might operate if they were actually called into play."

4) "The Constitution itself says remarkably little relevant to this topic, and what it does say is shockingly ambiguous."

Here is the applicable text of the Twelfth Amendment:

5) "The first thing to observe about this constitutional language is that the critical sentence is written in the passive voice: “the votes shall then be counted.” Here, thus, is the first frustrating ambiguity."

6) "It could be the “President of the Senate” who does the counting; or, after the President of the Senate has finished the role of “open[ing] the certificates” then the whole Congress, in this special joint session, collectively counts the electoral votes."

7) "Either way, this language contains no provision for what to do in the event of a dispute, whether with respect to the “certificates” to be “open[ed]” or with respect to the “votes” contained therein.”