Recently I read a bood where the VP-elect dies (is killed) before the inauguration… which lead me to think that the President-elect, or his/her party would simply nominate another, and things would move forward as normal.
What would happen if both -elect candidates were to die, either accidentially, or by design prior to inauguration day?
Would it follow a “normal succession” down the line, with the next elegible person being sworn in on inauguration day?
Please note, I have no interest in causing any harm to any candidate for any office, pre/post/during term.
Would it make a difference if the deaths occurred:
a) after the general election but before the electors meet in their state capitals.
b) after the electors have voted but before their ballots are counted in Congress.
c) after the electoral ballots have been counted
It depends on what you mean by “-elect candidates.”
If you mean the candidates that the Electoral College elected in early December, then the Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. § 19, applies, and “the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.” The Act prescribes the same line of succession as if the incumbent President and Vice Prtesident had died in office.
But if you mean the candidates for whom the people voted in November, but before the Electoral College meets, then technically no election of a President or Vice President has occurred – only an election of electors, who are free to vote for whomever they choose. As a practical matter, both major national parties have authorized their national committees to fill a vacancy in the party’s nominee for President or Vice President, and presumably the winning party’s national committee would nominate new candidates for whom the party’s electors would vote. Presumably. But the electors are under no constitutional obligation to follow their party’s lead, which is the point of Jeff Greenfield’s highly entertaining and legally accurate novel The People’s Choice.
I had been thinking post Electoral College. For argument’s sake, let’s say they get hammered and drive off a cliff New Years Eve, (technically day) 1:07AM January 1. Three weeks before the inauguration.
If there’s no President-elect come Inauguration Day then the VP-elect would become POTUS. If there’s no VP-elect the Speaker of the House would act as President.
What happens if Presidential and Vice Presdiential cantidates die on election day? is the election postponed, does it become a one horse race, or are the dead guys (possibly) elected (think of the sympathy vote!) and then the line of sucession put in place?
Dead guys on the ballot happen with startling regularity. One can still vote for them and they can be elected. So if a presidential candidate died ON election day and still carried a majority of electors I’d guess those electors would be free to do as they liked come voting time.
OK. What I heard is that there was a controversy when John Tyler was president about whether he was actually president or merely acting president, and that it was eventually decided (by the Supreme Court?) that he was actually president. I thought maybe there was a difference between the two. Can an acting president choose a vice-president to succeed him/her in the case of resignation, impeachment or death? (And if so, will that be an actual vice-president or an acting vice-president, or am I going too far in that line of thought? )
For example, in the 1912 election, 3,483,922 Americans voted for the Republican ticket of Taft and Sherman, even though Vice-President Sherman had died on October 30, 1912.
The death of his running mate was only the least of President Taft’s worries, of course, since he came in third in the election and only got 8 Electoral votes. Between the general election and the day the Electors cast their votes, the Republicans substituted Nicholas Butler as their veep candidate, so the Electors at least didn’t have to vote for a stiff (to use the Master’s elegant term).
For the benefit of persons who might ask this question in the future–and let’s face it, it’s a hardy perennial–it should be pointed out that the answer given by brianmelendez in Post#3 is correct, and the answer given in the 1980 Straight Dope column, linked in the same post, is wrong. (Sorry, Cecil).
Cecil writes (in the column of 12/9/1980):
This is doubly incorrect. Congress has so provided, in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, but a double death wouldn’t be an instance of “failure to qualify”. It would be an instance of, well, double death.
The law doesn’t get much more explicit than that. Deaths between the election and the inauguration are treated exactly the same as deaths afterward. If the Pres-elect and VP-elect die before 1/20, then on 1/20, “by reason of death”, “there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President”. The Speaker shall “act as President”, or, for all practical purposes, become President.
The one remaining gap in the succession law concerns failure to elect a President or Vice-President by Inauguration Day. Failure to elect can happen either of two ways–by a failure of Congress to complete the electoral count in time, or by failure of the House and Senate to complete an election in cases where no candidate got an electoral majority. Common sense would dictate that in such a case the Speaker serve on a temporary basis until the election is complete, but no law covers the matter.
Freddy is obviously a scholar and a gentleman of great distinction.
That situation would probably be shoehorned into the “failure to qualify” category, since presumably election is an essential precondition for whatever qualifications apply. But the law could surely be written more clearly.
There is at least one other conundrum in succession law that would come into play if the Presidency and Vice Presidency were simultaneously vacant and the Speaker succeeded. When the Presidential Succession Act was adopted, in 1947, it envisioned the legislative presiding officers as “permanent” successors under subsection (c) (“shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term”), and the cabinet officers as “contingent” successors under subsection (d) (“shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act …”). Either chamber of Congress could thus unseat a contingent successor by electing a Speaker or a President pro tem, who would immediately ascend to the Presidency on a “permanent” basis.
But the 25th amendment, adopted in 1967, introduced a new wrinkle. The Succession Act says of the “permanent” successors that “if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies.” When that statute was written, in 1947, there was no way of filling a Vice Presidential vacancy; if a Vice President succeeded to the Presidency or left office in any other way, then the Vice Presidency was vacant for the term’s remainder. But under the 25th amendment, there is way of filling the vacancy:
Presumably a Vice President who takes office under the 25th amendment has “qualified” as Vice President – in which case, if the Succession Act is read literally, he or she unseats the acting President who nominated him or her, since the acting President “shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies.” That result might unsettle at least some politicians. :rolleyes:
Incidentally, this is one reason why it’s significant that Congresscritters (Senators and Reps) take office a little before the President: If such an event were to occur, it would be the brand-new Speaker, representing the folks voted in in the recent election, who would take power, not the lame duck.
Of course, another quirk of this timing difference is that, for a few days in 2001, we had a sitting President married to a sitting Senator.
Are you sure? That’s the point at issue in the other thread.
I read “prior-entitled” the same way treis did–to mean “prior” in a temporal sense. That is to say, that a Speaker elected “after the fact” would not be “prior-entitled” and would not displace a Cabinet-member-turned-President. Under my reading, VP replacement doesn’t change anything.
)