Just suppose, as Pence is presiding over the counting of the electoral votes, he opens the envelope from California and announces, “55 votes for Trump for president and 55 votes for Pence for vice-president.” What happens next?
Northern Piper had a good run-down of the redundancy of the Electoral College votes here:
Nah, he’s no Thomas Jefferson.
Also, he gets to open the envelope, but then hands it over to the designated tellers from both delegations, who read the vote.
Though it would be a fascinating thing to imagine one of the younger Dems leaping up from the floor to try and hit Pence with his own gavel. Considering the average age of the Senate we’d lose a few Senators in the ensuing riot.
Pence: I declare all 55 of California’s EVs for President Donald J. Trump
Schumer: You mean to tell me that despite all of the media coverage that California voted for Biden, that CA electors were shown on TV voting for Biden, and there was no possible way according to any poll that California went for Trump, you are telling me that the piece of paper you are holding is a signed certificate of ascertainment saying that the Governor of California certified that 55 electors voted for Trump?
Pence: Yes.
Schumer: May I see it?
Pence: No.
If Pence did that on January 6, there would be plenty of time to impeach him before January 20.
I’m telling you. I just don’t think he’ll show up. President Pro Tempore is doing this stuff.
He’s too much of a coward to announce Biden is president-to-be unless Trump gives the go ahead.
I’m sorta inclined to agree, but I wonder…what political career does he think he have after this? He’s not the heir apparent to Trump - he was always Race Bannon/‘enabler guy’. That was his job. He had one job. Did it well. But what career could he possibly have after this? Take over Joel Osteen’s church? Nah, he has no charisma whatsoever.
I think you may be right. Pence is a coward.
I only hope that his name becomes synonymous with “someone who is a gutless worm of an enabler of a pathetic weak coward wanna-be dictator”
Sort of like what happened with Quisling.
He may go, but nothing can change that. No coward would cling to Trump unless they are the deepest of cowards. And a Christian, too. A true fraud.
Pence will be there. It will be his very last act as a public official, why miss it?
The nuttiest of the nutty Trumpers are pinning their remaining hopes on Jan. 6. They’ve got it in their heads that Congress will act to “correct” all that fraud that’s been going around, and recognize that Trump won the election fair and square.
I think it is possible, but I think he may want to prove to Trump-supporters that he sides with them.
I heard Mitch McConnell today privately began calling Republicans to ask them not to object on January 6.
But ditching the joint session would be the ultimate abandonment of Trump in the eyes of his supporters. The hard core Trumpers are already weaving a narrative that the establishment GOP has been complicit in the “steal” by refusing to overturn the result by any means necessary. In their eyes, Pence as presiding officer of the joint session is their last, best hope to correct this injustice. If he decides to hide in a closet that day, they’ll never forgive him.
If Pence doesn’t show up, who would be in line to take up his duties that day?
Chuck Grassley. My bet is he would just count them and announce the winner or whatever they do in the role.
It’s a non-event, pretty much.
Hmm. So, 3 U.S. Code§15 says, “The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate [defined in the Constitution as the Vice President] shall be their presiding officer.” The statue conspicuously does NOT provide for any other official to take his place in his absence. Why assume it would be the President Pro Tempore? It’s a joint session of Congress, why wouldn’t the Speaker of the House have equal standing to preside in the VP’s absence?
Article 1, Section 3:
- The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
Yes, but that’s speaking specifically about a President pro tempore to fill in for the VP’s absence in the Senate. The PPT doesn’t fill in for the VP in other capacities – e.g. the VP is a member of the National Security Council but the PPT doesn’t sit in those meetings if the Veep is absent. And the Speaker of the House typically chairs other joint sessions such as for the State of the Union.
Maybe I’m overthinking it, but I do think it’s an open question whether being presiding officer of the joint session would necessarily devolve to the PPT in the VPs absence. I’ve tried to find out if it’s come up in previous joint sessions (the guy has to take a pee break every now and again, right?) but haven’t been able to find anything.
You’re overthinking it. The statute you cite doesn’t specify the “Vice President” - it specifies the “President of the Senate”. @Telemark cites the relevant clause of the Constitution. The President pro tempore is the President of the Senate when the Vice President is not present. There’s no ambiguity.
Exactly, the Constitution lays out how the president of the senate works, and it applies to every situation unless specified otherwise.