# Ignorant election nightmare scenarios **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 25, 2024, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178 "2024-08-25T03:46:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/21 "2024-08-26T01:39:51Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > So the Republicans could totally steal a win by not certifying results. In the hypothetical like the one in that article, where Trump is winning without Georgia, Harris wins Georgia narrowly, the GOP refuses to certify the result in Georgia At which point a federal judge orders the election certified because refusing to appoint electors would grossly violate the 14th amendment. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/22 "2024-08-26T01:44:13Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > At which point a federal judge orders the election certified because refusing to appoint electors would grossly violate the 14th amendment Which would end up in front of the SCOTUS who would obviously agree with this statement, just like they agreed with other blatantly true statements such as \*Roe-Wade is settled law" and “there is no constitutional basis for Presidential immunity”. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/23 "2024-08-26T01:46:51Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Which would end up in front of the SCOTUS who would obviously agree with this statement, just like they agreed with other blatantly true statements such as \*Roe-Wade is settled law" and “there is no constitutional basis for Presidential immunity”. You’re suggesting they would do otherwise, like they did in 2020, which is why Trump is president right now, right? (Clutches earpiece) Oh, wait, I’m being told they unanimously rejected every election challenge that reached their docket. On what grounds do you suppose they’d suddenly change their minds and decide that disfranchising an entire state is cool actually? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/24 "2024-08-26T01:57:06Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You’re suggesting they would do otherwise, It is absolutely clear to anyone who has being paying attention that it’s a possibility. There is definitely a reasonable chance that given a GOP official responsible for certifying results, carrying out their constitutional duty (or what they think it is) by refusing to certify the results, the SCOTUS would go “yup sounds legit”. That didn’t happen in 2020 as the electoral officials had not been sufficiently corrupted, the GOP has spent the last few years fixing that. Saying “SCOTUS would never do that” is patently untrue. It’s a “Lucy would never move the football before Charlie Brown kicks it” statement ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/25 "2024-08-26T02:00:48Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > It is absolutely clear to anyone who has being paying attention that it’s a possibility. There is definitely a reasonable chance that given a GOP official responsible for certifying results, carrying out their constitutional duty (or what they think it is) by refusing to certify the results, the SCOTUS would go “yup sounds legit”. That didn’t happen in 2020 as the electoral officials had not been sufficiently corrupted, the GOP has spent the last few years fixing that. Present a constitutional argument for disfranchising the entire population of a state that you believe John Roberts would agree with. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/26 "2024-08-26T02:08:51Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Present a constitutional argument for disfranchising the entire population of a state that you believe John Roberts would agree with. Here you go. Here is one for Presidential Immunity. A concept that does not exist in the constitution, flies in the face of equal treatment under the law and one for which there is plenty of evidence the founders vehemently opposed: > **[23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)** There is absolutely no way you can tell me the court that wrote that would not be happy to find it a-ok when an election official, who is constitutionally bound to decide whether or not to send an election result to the electoral college, decides not to send it ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/27 "2024-08-26T02:18:28Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Here you go. Here is one for Presidential Immunity. Which has absolutely nothing to do with “Here’s why the people.of Georgia shouldn’t have their votes counted”. > [@griffin1977](#): > > There is absolutely no way you can tell me the court that wrote that would not be happy to find it a-ok when an election official, who is constitutionally bound to decide whether or not to send an election result to the electoral college, decides not to send it Then this is a matter of faith on your part and not one that can be rationally disputed, so far be it from me to question your religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/28 "2024-08-26T02:31:55Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Then this is a matter of faith on your part and not one that can be rationally disputed, so far be it from me to question your religious beliefs Well, one of us definitely has an unshakable faith in a higher power despite all the evidence that they are not worthy of that faith… ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/29 "2024-08-26T03:19:46Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > despite all the evidence that they are not worthy of that faith… Ahem. > **[Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to overturn election | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/politics/supreme-court-texas-trump-biden/index.html)** > > The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid from Texas’ attorney general – supported by President Donald Trump – to block the ballots of millions of voters in battleground states that went in favor of President-elect Joe Biden. > **[Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-us-supreme-court-5cc6aee8c328c7bb1d423244b979bcec)** > > WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election. > **[Supreme Court rejects final Trump election challenge](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-final-trump-election-challenge-n1260023)** > > Trump had appealed lower court rulings that upheld Wisconsin's handling of mail-in ballots. It was the last in a string of defeats before the court. You propose that the six conservatives on the court who uniformly rejected every single challenge Trump threw up in 2020 are going to pull a complete 180 and decide that the people have no right to have their votes counted, on the basis of “trust me bro”. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/30 "2024-08-26T03:26:24Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Ahem Yeah my point exactly: > He urged Kemp to use “emergency powers” to block the certification of the results and demanded that the governor call a special session to overturn the election results and name a slate of Republican electors to award him the state’s 16 electoral votes. **Each time he was rebuffed,** The SCOTUS **never** got to rule on a case like this! There is nothing about what happened in 2020 that gives any indication of how they would rule if they had. If you are 100% sure they would not have signed off on it and will not sign of it, if it happens this December you have a blind faith in the institution of the supreme court that bears no relation to the actual actions of the real world SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/31 "2024-08-26T03:29:39Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The SCOTUS **never** got to rule on a case like this! Actually, they did. It was called Bush v. Gore and the decision was that Florida could not continue its recount past December 12 because that was the deadline to certify and not meeting it would have risked Florida’s votes not being counted. The Court would literally have to rule the exact opposite of how they did in 2000 to produce your scenario. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/32 "2024-08-26T03:44:15Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Bush v. Gore You mean that case where the SCOTUS decided to side with the GOP official constitutionally entrusted with certifying Florida’s votes and sending them to the electoral college, despite there being evidence that by doing so they were disenfranchising some voters? That case gives you hope for this situation? Also, I hate to break it to you but the SCOTUS of 2000AD is not the SCOTUS of 2024AD. I am not a fan of Bush-Gore but the recent SCOTUS rulings make that look like a clerical error. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/33 "2024-08-26T03:47:21Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The SCOTUS **never** got to rule on a case like this! They refused to despite having multiple opportunities. > **[Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-us-supreme-court-5cc6aee8c328c7bb1d423244b979bcec)** > > WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election. > The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. > > Other than two Pennsylvania disputes, the justices’ decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising but ends months of legal wrangling. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had [turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-elections-us-supreme-court-ce563646432dbee937dc5e8f1d677287), again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/34 "2024-08-26T03:54:29Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > You mean that case where the SCOTUS decided to side with the GOP official constitutionally entrusted with certifying Florida’s votes and sending them to the electoral college, despite there being evidence that by doing so they were disenfranchising some voters? I mean the case about whether a state can refuse to certify its election results, which they determined it could not. If your argument is that the Supreme Court, which has previously shown absolutely no desire to make Trump a dictator and has repeatedly ruled against him, is going to completely reverse course and disregard the Constitution itself and declare that an entire state doesn’t get to vote, then you’re simply not being rational. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/35 "2024-08-26T03:54:54Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > They refused to despite having multiple opportunities Again this (bolding mine) > [@griffin1977](#): > > He urged Kemp to use “emergency powers” to block the certification of the results and demanded that the governor call a special session to overturn the election results and name a slate of Republican electors to award him the state’s 16 electoral votes. **Each time he was rebuffed** In 2020 SCOTUS declined to unilaterally carry out a coup and overturn an election despite the electoral officials constitutionally charged with doing so certifying it as legitimate. That says nothing about what they will do if those officials decided to use their constitutionally mandated power to not certify an election. Everything the SCOTUS has done in the last few years tells us there is a good chance they will say “yup sounds good, go ahead” ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/36 "2024-08-26T04:01:23Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > That says nothing about what they will do if those officials decided to use their constitutionally mandated power to not certify an election. There is no “power to not certify an election”. You are inventing a process that does not exist under US law. If the responsible person refuses to carry out their duty, they will be ordered to do so by a court or they will be removed from office. > **[What Happens When Election Officials Refuse to Certify Results?](https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-happens-when-election-officials-refuse-to-certify-results/)** > > What was once seen as nothing more than a procedural part of the elections process has, in the past two election cycles, evolved into something of a battlefield in the election denial movement.  > [@griffin1977](#): > > Everything the SCOTUS has done in the last few years tells us there is a good chance they will say “yup sounds good, go ahead” I have seen nothing from the Court in the last few years that indicates that they intend to abandon one-person-one-vote in order to help Donald Trump become a dictator. This is unfounded paranoia just as much as the “President So-and-so is going to cancel the election!” canard I mentioned upthread. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/37 "2024-08-26T12:04:05Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > mean the case about whether a state can refuse to certify its election results, which they determined it could not The state, in the form of GOP Sec of State had decided to certify the election result. Lower courts overruled her, and forced a recount, the SCOTUS overruled them and made with Harris’s decision as the duly mandated electoral official final. But again that was the 2000 SCOTUS a completely different organisation. Nothing about the 2024 SCOTUS makes me think it would consider that as settled law and not overruled it, any more than they did for Roe v Wade ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/38 "2024-08-26T12:06:09Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > There is no “power to not certify an election”. Um yes there is: > If an election had been contested, [3 U.S.C.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code) [§ 6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/6) also provides that “if there shall have been any final determination in a state in the manner provided for by [state] law of a controversy or contest,” There is absolutely a law that says state officials have the power to determine whether an election was valid and should be certified. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/39 "2024-08-26T14:37:43Z")
I’m pretty sure the manner of final determination in any state is never a state official will decide who won the election. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/40 "2024-08-26T21:12:11Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > [3 U.S.C.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code) [§ 6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/6) Excuse me? > [@](#): > > The certificates of ascertainment of appointment of electors received by the Archivist of the United States under section 5 shall— > (1)be preserved for one year; > (2)be a part of the public records of such office; and > (3)be open to public inspection. I don’t think you cited what you meant to, because that has nothing to do with state certification of election results, and there is no scenario in which a state gets to say “We’re just gonna pretend that election never happened because we don’t like the result” and the Supreme Court says “Yeah sounds good”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178.md?page=3)