U.S. Constitution: Article II
It seems to me that Congress could have a re-vote for the entire country, but not just for Palm County. Does anyone read this differently?
Neither. You think Congress could just make people vote over and over again untill they got the result they wanted? Besides, there can be no ex post facto laws. The election was on the second Tuesday in November, period.
I think the portion of the Constitution you’re quoting applies to the day the Electors cast their votes (which is normally some day in early January, I forget the exact date), not the day which the Electors are chosen; ‘which Day’ seems to apply back to the last day mentioned, which was when the Electors vote.
Well, I tell ya. It ain’t gonna be any Florida state court or Federal appeals court that sorts this all out. It’s gotta be the Big Kahuna, baby!
What will come of this, I don’t know. The only result I see that comes close to being kosher is to count the votes and go home. I can’t see how any court could justify a re-vote at any level.
This barring fraud, of course. On another thread I was informed that fraud did not have to be deliberate. I must not understand what “fraud” means, because I thought that intent was essential. I would think one would have to prove illegal manipulations (“shenannigans,” as I heard another poster put it), or otherwise something more than mistakes or confusion. Of course, if the courts say fraud can indeed be accidental, then that theoretically could provide a hinge upon which to base a do-over.
I don’t know, but it is fascinating to watch!
Amok
This seems to clearly dictate that Congress gets to set the day the people vote AND the day that the electors, once chosen, vote.
jmullaney
I agree. My point was more that having a vote anywhere in the US on a DIFFERENT day than the rest of the country was unconstitutional. Palm county has to vote on the same day as the rest of us, the have to follow the laws in place at the time of the vote, and if they lt their system fall aprt, then they shouldn’t blame us.
I don’t know about the constitutionality of it, but it’s a REAL bad idea to allow re-voting in just one area or state.
Imagine this scenario: The election in Florida is thrown out and the state has to revote.
Gore: I promise you that every Florida senior citizen will have unlimited health care.
Bush: I promise you that if you, the good people of Florida elect me, I will make (fill in your favorite borscht-belt star) the ambassador to Israel.
and so on and so forth. Both parties might start making promises that would never wash in a national election. The temptation to pander to just one state or region is just too great. If it’s gonna be redone (and I don’t know that it can), it’s gotta be nationwide.
Zev Steinhardt
Yes, that is all well and good, but (and I hate to go Clinton here), but we must define the term “vote”.
Is to “vote” the same as “walk into a place of voting and be told that you cannot vote, regardless of your voter registration card and resident status”?
And if that isn’t/wasn’t the case in Florida, is to “vote” the same as “ask for clarification of a perceived ballot confusion only to be told that either the election official doesn’t know, isn’t allowed to help you, or your vote is invalid”?
In most any case, a regional re-vote is going to be un-Constitutional. But I trust the courts to decide at what point, if any, the voting process was compromised and could be perceived as un-Constitutional.
Again, its too early to decide. I don’t want to make any conclusions until everything is on the table, and even then I don’t like the idea of the office of the President to be up in the air for so long.