# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2024, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/41 "2024-08-26T21:57:42Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > 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. Right on. Some deep-dive links to support this: **[Lauren Miller & Will Wilder, _Certification and Non-Discretion: A Guide to Protecting the 2024 Election_, 35 Stanford Law & Policy Rev. 1 (2024).](https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MILLER-WILDER-FINAL-1.pdf)** pp 13-14: > D. Enforcing Certification Statutes When Officials Fail to Carry Out Their Duties > > In the event that election officials refuse to certify or delay certifying results, every state certification system includes an enforcement mechanism that generally falls into one of two categories: statutory remedies specific to the election certification context, or general mandamus remedies that apply to ministerial duties such as certifying an election. Additionally, states may also choose to impose criminal penalties on officials who refuse to properly certify results. > > Some states with specific statutory remedies create a cause of action that a voter or candidate can bring in court against an official who refuses to certify the proper election results. In New Mexico, for example, any state trial court may “upon petition of any voter . . . issue a writ of mandamus to the county canvassing board to compel it to . . . certify the election results.”63 Other states, such as Michigan, allow the state election board to take over certification at the local level in the event that a local official refuses to certify … > > In states without an explicit statutory enforcement mechanism, plaintiffs can petition for a writ of mandamus when officials refuse to certify the proper results.65 Generally speaking, a writ of mandamus “compel[s] a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.”66 In the election certification contest, a writ of mandamus would thus order a local official to certify the winner of an election pursuant to their state’s election certification framework.67 … > > As with any dispute that implicates separate branches of government, states may confront a situation in which officials who refuse to certify an election subsequently choose to defy a court order directing them to certify. While modern elections have fortunately not seen this sort of defiance, Derek T. Muller’s recent article, **[_Election Subversion and the Writ of Mandamus_](https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2554&context=law_faculty_scholarship)**,71 sets forth several state statutory mechanisms that would compel performance in such an instance, including fines that stem from courts’ contempt power;72 provisions that allow rogue officials to be removed from office;73 or provisions analogous to **[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_70)** that allow courts to appoint another person to carry out the court-ordered certification.74 The Muller citation in the last paragraph above is: [**Derek T. Muller, _Election Subversion and the Writ of Mandamus_, 65 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 327 (2023).**](https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1538) pp 349-350 (pp 24-25 of PDF) > III. DEFYING MANDAMUS > > Mandamus is a court order that directs an election official to do something. What happens if an election official still refuses and defies mandamus? > > At common law, two remedies were readily available. First, the court could order the attachment of property to compel the offending officer to comply.142 Second, the court could use its contempt power to compel a recalcitrant official to comply.143 Courts today draw on these traditional remedies and have at least four mechanisms to compel performance: fines, imprisonment, replacing the official, or substituting another official to perform the act.144 The first two trace back to the court’s contempt power, but the last two are newer developments. Pp 350-353 of Muller’s article detail a 2022 case in Otero County, New Mexico where the local canvassing board initially refused to certify a primary election but was later forced via a writ of mandamus to certify or resign their posts. Cliffs Notes of the affair below: > **[New Mexico Supreme Court orders Otero County commission certify primary...](https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/new-mexico-supreme-court-orders-otero-county-commission-certify-primary-election-votes-couy-griffin-republican-democrat-gop-state-dominion-voting-machines)** > > The Republican-led commission of rural Otero County was ordered by the New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday to certify primary election votes after it refused to do so over distrust of Dominion vote-tallying machines. The decision came... EDIT: And, oh yeah - the guy pictured in the cowboy hat? > **[Couy Griffin first elected official barred from office for participating in...](https://sourcenm.com/2022/09/06/couy-griffin-first-elected-official-barred-from-office-for-participating-in-jan-6-attack/)** > > Judge orders removal of Otero county commissioner and bans him from holding other elected positions ever again. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/42 "2024-08-26T22:01:46Z")
It looks like he was citing an [outdated version of the U.S Code](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralcode.html). ---
**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:** [August 27, 2024, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/43 "2024-08-27T01:10:08Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > The electors are appointed by the states based on election results. If a state sends no electors; they have effectively not appointed any. Is that how it was dealt with during the Civil War election of 1864? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2024, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/44 "2024-08-27T01:16:59Z")
**[Essentially](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1864_United_States_presidential_election)**. Lincoln ended up winning 212 electoral votes vs. George McClellan’s 21: > The seceded states of [Louisiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana) and [Tennessee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee), which had recently been captured from Confederate control, held elections; however, no electoral votes were counted from either of them due to their allegiance to the Confederacy.[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1864_United_States_presidential_election#cite_note-Donald,_Herbert,_Baker,_Holt-3) One of [Nevada’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada) three electors was snowbound and unable to cast a vote for President or Vice President.[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1864_United_States_presidential_election#cite_note-:0-1) [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/ElectoralCollege1864.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1864.svg.png) ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/ElectoralCollege1864.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1864.svg.png) ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2024, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/45 "2024-08-27T01:20:46Z")
Looks like the Democrats are trying to get ahead of any potential issues: > **[Democrats sue to block new GOP-backed Georgia election certification rules |...](https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/26/politics/democrats-lawsuit-georgia-certification-rules/index.html)** > > Democrats on Monday sued to block controversial new election rules in Georgia that they warned could lead to post-election “chaos” in the presidential battleground state in November. > [@](#): > > Democrats are seeking a court ruling that makes clear that election superintendents do not have the discretion to delay the certification of election results or to refuse to certify the results altogether. > > They are asking for the court to declare that “absent a valid judicial order to the contrary, election superintendents must certify the results of the November 5, 2024 election no later than 5:00 P.M. on November 12, 2024.” ---
**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:** [September 23, 2024, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/46 "2024-09-23T02:09:16Z")
> [@Actual attempts of Republicans trying to steal the upcoming presidential election in 2024](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-attempts-of-republicans-trying-to-steal-the-upcoming-presidential-election-in-2024/1007533/68): > > But when the CEO of the company that makes the voting machines says he’s going to subvert democracy, that’s the sort of thing that you kind of have to pay attention to. That’s not what he said. > **[Walden O'Dell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_O%27Dell)** > > Walden "Wally" O'Dell is the former chief executive officer and former chairman of the board of Diebold, a US-based security and financial products company. > He was an active fundraiser for George W. Bush's re-election campaign and wrote in a fund-raising letter dated August 13, 2003, that he was committed "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President." His involvement with the campaign raised concerns that, as the CEO of the largest manufacturer of electronic voting equipment,\[ci... “I am committed to helping [Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio) deliver its [electoral votes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_votes) to the President” != “I will subvert democracy to ensure Bush is declared the winner”. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2024, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/47 "2024-09-23T02:51:59Z")
If a Superbowl referee said “I am committed to helping the Patriots win the Superbowl”, would that be any cause for concern? Committing to helping to deliver votes to one particular candidate is, in fact, saying that they’ll subvert democracy. ---
**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:** [September 23, 2024, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/48 "2024-09-23T03:01:49Z")
The CEO of the company doesn’t design the voting machines or count the votes. Is there any evidence whatsoever that votes were manipulated in areas where Diebold machines were used, and that the outcome of the election was changed by it? It’s been 20 years - there’s been plenty of time for intrepid truth-seekers like yourself to find all the proof of such a massive conspiracy that would have to exist. Or is an offhand comment in a fundraising letter 15 months before the election all the proof you need? When George Soros said two months ago that he was committed to getting Kamala Harris elected, was that proof of his intent to subvert democracy? And why didn’t Republicans win Ohio in 2008 or 2012 if it’s so easy to seamlessly change the outcome? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2024, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/49 "2024-09-23T13:09:56Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Is there any evidence whatsoever that votes were manipulated in areas where Diebold machines were used, and that the outcome of the election was changed by it? [Yes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions#Controversies), several examples are on the Wikipedia page. Not much more is possible because the fact that some versions (especially the ones preferred by Republicans, for some reason…) leave no trace of vote tampering is one reason they are distrusted. Demanding evidence when they produce none is actually just underlining _why_ many people oppose their use. ---
**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:** [September 23, 2024, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/50 "2024-09-23T19:39:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > [Yes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions#Controversies), several examples are on the Wikipedia page. Nowhere on that page does it state that votes were manipulated. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2024, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/51 "2024-09-23T20:37:31Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > At which point a federal judge orders the election certified because refusing to appoint electors would grossly violate the 14th amendment. And then overruled by SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2024, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/52 "2024-09-23T20:44:02Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > And then overruled by SCOTUS. Why? The last time they interfered so that Florida’s election results could be certified. Scenarios where SCOTUS arbitrarily hands Trump the Presidency are one of the reasons I created this thread. ---
**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:** [September 23, 2024, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/53 "2024-09-23T20:44:52Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > And then overruled by SCOTUS Just like they did in 2020, which is why Trump is still president right now, right? ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2024, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/54 "2024-09-24T00:14:26Z")
I don’t know why anybody thinks that conservatives on the Supreme Court have any interest in putting Trump back in office. Well, maybe Clarence Thomas, both to get his wife off his back and so he can retire and spend the rest of his days on Harlan Crow’s houseboat. But the other conservative justices have their seats for life, owe no personal allegiance to Trump, and have a pretty solid majority for the next four years. And they’re just as able to shape our jurisprudence under a Democratic White House as a Republican one – they’ll just be ruling against the Administration rather than for it. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2024, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/55 "2024-09-24T00:35:56Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > I don’t know why anybody thinks that conservatives on the Supreme Court have any interest in putting Trump back in office. They violated their oath to uphold the constitution by letting him run despite being disqualified under Article 14 Section 3. This suggests to me that they have an interest in Trump going back in office. I’m not saying dreams of having Trump back in office is their only motivation. Fear of the what their friends would say, if the constitutional literalists took their oath of office literally, is also in there. ---
**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:** [September 24, 2024, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/56 "2024-09-24T00:41:49Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > They violated their oath to uphold the constitution by letting him run despite being disqualified under Article 14 Section 3. That’s not what they ruled. They ruled that an individual state cannot make the decision that someone is disqualified under the 14th. And that part of the decision was unanimous. > **[Supreme Court rules states cannot remove Trump from ballot for insurrection -...](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/)** > > The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices held that only Congress –... And to say that a Supreme Court decision violates the Constitution is an oxymoron - Supreme Court decisions are part of the supreme law of the land, on equal footing with the Constitution itself. It’s like papal infallibility - the Constitution does not allow for the Supreme Court to be wrong. And to reiterate the question nobody seems to be able to answer - if the conservatives on the Court are all champing at the bit to find any pretense to take the election out of the hands of the voters and declare Trump the winner, why isn’t he president right now? Shouldn’t they have ensured he won 2020? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2024, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/57 "2024-09-24T00:51:14Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And to say that a Supreme Court decision violates the Constitution is an oxymoron - Supreme Court decisions are part of the supreme law of the land, on equal footing with the Constitution itself. So sayeth the Supreme Court, at least. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2024, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/58 "2024-09-24T01:23:53Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > > > They violated their oath to uphold the constitution by letting him run despite being disqualified under Article 14 Section 3. > > That’s not what they ruled. They ruled that an individual state cannot make the decision that someone is disqualified under the 14th. And that part of the decision was unanimous. So mine is then an ignorant election nightmare scenario? (You did not say that, but a lawyer might think it.) Ignorant or not, it seems to me that electing a disqualified candidate is a nightmare election scenario. P.S. As for SCOTUS only ruling narrowly on the case before it, normallly it is a good idea. But there is nothing in the constitution or oath of office that says they should do that. P.P.S. What about the nightmare scenario where Roberts swears Trump in for a second term knowing him to be disqualified from the office? ---
**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:** [September 24, 2024, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/59 "2024-09-24T01:30:44Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Ignorant or not, it seems to me that electing a disqualified candidate is a nightmare election scenario. There has to be due process of law for that disqualification to happen. It doesn’t just attach automatically because “everyone knows he did it”. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2024, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178/60 "2024-09-24T01:52:07Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > I don’t know why anybody thinks that conservatives on the Supreme Court have any interest in putting Trump back in office. Well, maybe Clarence Thomas, both to get his wife off his back and so he can retire and spend the rest of his days on Harlan Crow’s houseboat. But the other conservative justices have their seats for life, owe no personal allegiance to Trump, and have a pretty solid majority for the next four years. I previously thought the Supreme conservative wing would be against another Trump presidency. After all, now the Supreme’s are one leg of the triparte government. A dictator Trump would happily make the Supreme’s a rubber stamp or replaced. That said, Robert’s et al ran out the clock so there is no way DJT gets tried for Jan 6 before the election. And that is the complete opposite of Bush v Gore, when the Supreme’s took Bush v Gore on 9 Dec and issued the decision on 12 Dec. IIRC, the logic was that uncertainty of the next president was a threat to the US of A. What wasn’t said out loud was that such a ruling effectively decided Bush won. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorant-election-nightmare-scenarios/1006178.md?page=4)