# 50 Trump electors found to be not eligible tbe electors? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 5, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398 "2017-01-05T17:10:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/1 "2017-01-05T17:10:00Z")
Summary [here](http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/bombshell-report-claims-at-least-50-trump-electors-are-illegitimate-and-should-not-have-voted/) I am very curious (and ignorant) of what this means. The story says that defintely 50 (it may be as high as 100?) Trump electors to be ineligble to hold the position as electors of the College. In the linked article are two different links to to further info, including the actual findings of the bipartisan legal findings of the legal team re: Constitutional requirements that checked the electors. Seems really fishy to me, but my ignorance leads me to post this inquiry. What I am curious about is if this holds water, or if its a really, really long shot at preventing Trump from being inaugurated on the prescribed date, etc. How could/would this hold up the inauguration or possibly change the results of who actually takes the office of Presidency? Do those who were illegally appointed as electors simply have their votes negated in toto? I am surprised that,so far as I can tell by watching various news/media reports that none of the media outlets I have seen have focussed on this report, and if it really means anything in the process of election results. Is it BS or a real threat to Trump to taking the oath of office. Is it a non-sequitor at this point overall? Short summary - it has been shown that at least 50 (maybe up to 100?) Trump electors were Constitutionally unqualified to be electors in this election by holding dual offices and/or not living in the district they represented. Being that it was agreed upon by both R’s and D’s, it seems to be somewhat important and relevant, but my ignorance stumps me. I think it means it goes to Congress to choose the outcome, but am not sure by any means. I’d love factual/informed thoughts on this seemingly factual finding. Thanks and appreciation for any thoughts/insights into what this means. 🙂 Mods: if this is already mentioned in another thread here, plz close this and redirect me to where it it is being talked about. Thx. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/2 "2017-01-05T17:47:25Z")
It’s over, dude. It’s over. Anyways, a quick look seems to show that North Carolina’s rule on dual office for electors is: > [@](#): > > (b) Upon receiving the filing of a name as a candidate for elector under this section, the Secretary of State shall notify that candidate of the dual-office holding requirements of the North Carolina Constitution and the General Statutes, including specifically that if a person elected as elector holds another elective office at the time of taking the oath of office as elector, that other office is vacated upon taking the oath of office. NC 163-209 > [@](#): > > The office of elector may be held in addition to the maximum number of appointive offices allowed by G.S. 128-1.1. NC 163-209.2 The alternet article says they think 23 Trump voting states violated the 12th amendment by not providing 2 distinct lists for President and Vice-president. Yeah, ok. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/3 "2017-01-05T17:50:48Z")
I was sure that with the word “bombshell” in the title and body of the article, this would really be the final nail in Trump’s coffin. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/4 "2017-01-05T17:54:58Z")
Even if it was true, so what? The election goes to the house and they promptly elect Trump. Given how completely the republicans have abandoned their principles to kiss The Donald’s ass, is there any other possible outcome? ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/5 "2017-01-05T19:08:58Z")
The report may be BOTH true and irrelevant. There are two issues here–the state side, and the federal side. I am not at all certain that problems on the state side of things, such as not having all Congressional districts represented, actually invalidate the electors in their **federal** capacity. For the dual office holders, it looks like NC at least prioritizes the elector office over state office. So the electors there would still be perfectly legitimate electors. What happens after that with their state office is a purely internal state matter. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/6 "2017-01-05T19:28:02Z")
> **[At least 50 Donald Trump electors were illegally seated as Electoral College...](https://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/at-least-50-donald-trump-electors-were-illegally-seated-as-electoral-college-members-report_partner/)** > > More evidence surfaces as calls mount to challenge congressional ratification of Electoral College vote Some people are really struggling to accept reality. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/7 "2017-01-05T19:30:51Z")
Nice, inaccurate reporting there. > [@](#): > > That stunning finding is among the conclusions of an extensive 1,000-plus page legal briefing prepared by a **bipartisan** nationwide legal team for members of Congress who are being urged to object to certifying the 2016 Electoral College results on Friday. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/8 "2017-01-05T19:32:32Z")
That a Democrat may have been involved doesn’t make it a “Dem plan”. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/9 "2017-01-05T19:43:29Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Nice, inaccurate reporting there. “Bipartisan”? What makes it “bipartisan”? Did it include Democrat and Green party members? This alleged bipartisan group is now urging that the election not be certified. Not even Hillary is asking for that. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/10 "2017-01-05T19:43:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That a Democrat may have been involved doesn’t make it a “Dem plan”. Do you think they’re petitioning Republicans or Democrats to object to the vote certification? If there are objections tomorrow, do you think they’re likely to come from D’s or R’s? Or is it too big of a mystery for you? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/11 "2017-01-05T19:46:38Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Nice, inaccurate reporting there. I suspect that either the group itself or Salon (or both) are lying or mischaracterizing their partisan inclination. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/12 "2017-01-05T19:48:20Z")
Some are [trying to discredit](http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/04/urging-millions-rise-trump-foes-issue-call-resist-fascism) the existence of the Electoral College at all, claiming that it was created “to protect slavery.” (As much as I dislike Trump, I think this move is a stupid and as pointless as birtherism.) ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/13 "2017-01-05T19:52:46Z")
Someone already made a thread with at least a little effort in their OP: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=815514](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=815514) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/14 "2017-01-05T19:55:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you think they’re petitioning Republicans or Democrats to object to the vote certification? If there are objections tomorrow, do you think they’re likely to come from D’s or R’s? Or is it too big of a mystery for you? I think they’re pissing into the wind and there will be no objections, at least not due to anything related to this particular challenge. If this is a “Dem plan”, then various white supremacist plots to kill black people are “Republican plans”. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/15 "2017-01-05T19:58:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suspect that either the group itself or Salon (or both) are lying or mischaracterizing their partisan inclination. YMMV. So you took it upon yourself to correct the situation. I could just as easily be a GOP effort. There are Republicans who don’t like Trump. At any rate, this is not connected to either party in any official manner. You’d know that if you had read your own link. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/16 "2017-01-05T20:02:22Z")
First paragraph > [@](#): > > More than 50 Electoral College members who voted for Donald Trump were ineligible to serve as presidential electors because they did not live in the congressional districts they represented or held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders. Neither of which is a bar to being an elector. It read more like an Onion article than a real one. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/17 "2017-01-05T20:03:45Z")
Merged threads starting at post #6. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/18 "2017-01-05T20:06:47Z")
> [@Ionizer](#): > > Short summary - it has been shown that at least 50 (maybe up to 100?) Trump electors were Constitutionally unqualified to be electors in this election by holding dual offices and/or not living in the district they represented. Neither of those constitutionally bar someone from being an elector. > [@](#): > > Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. So holding a _Federal_ office (like being a postmaster from Oregon) may prevent you but being a state official does not. ETA: Double post due to merging. But at least this one has a cite. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/19 "2017-01-05T20:15:27Z")
Well, various state constitutions have bars on dual office. I cited North Carolina’s above. Eta: I never saw anything about electors having to reside in the district they represent. ISTM, in most states that would be a party matter not state/fed law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398/20 "2017-01-05T20:16:52Z")
My post seems to have been killed by the merge. The tl;dr version of it: per Florida caselaw, the dual office prohibition refers to paid offices. Electors are not paid. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-trump-electors-found-to-be-not-eligible-tbe-electors/776398.md?page=2)