I have questions about those “alternate Republican electors” who are voting for Trump in states that Biden won.
First: Are these the actual electors chosen by the Republican party, the ones who would have gone to vote for Trump had Trump actually won the popular vote? Or are these just a bunch of rogue self-appointed MAGAt nut-cases who are calling themselves “electors”?
Second: A question about what happens if these fake electors send their votes to Congress: I saw an article yesterday (sorry, forgot where, so no link) describing exactly how Congress would handle the case of competing slates of electors, and something odd stood out: Congress would take certain steps to resolve which electors to count, and the order of operations of those steps seems strange:
First, the governors of the states sign certificates of ascertainment, formally certifying which electors they’ve certified, and these go to Congress with the votes;
If there are competing slates of electors, then Congress does that thing of the House and Senate voting separately to decide which slate to count. (This is where the House gets one vote per state delegation.);
If step (2) doesn’t resolve the conflict (e.g., there’s a tie), then Congress looks at the certificate of ascertainment to see which slate was certified by the governor, and they must count that slate.
In other words, in the case of conflicting slates of electors, the votes in Congress of which slate to count takes precedence over the certificate from the governor of the true slate. That seems kinda bass-ackwards.
If the fake-Republican-elector slate is actually the ones appointed by the Republican party, then are they “genuine enough” that they could be the slate counted, even notwithstanding the Governor’s certificate for the Democratic slate?
If the fake-Republican-elector slate is just a bunch of self-appointed MAGAt loons, do they have any legal standing at all to claim to be the true electoral votes? Is it even legally possible for Congress to consider counting their votes?
Your comment in parentheses is incorrect. The House votes normally here. The only time where there is one vote per state delegation is if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes. At that point the House is actually electing the President in a so-called contingent election. This has only occurred three times in American history, the last time in 1837.
According the the linked AP article, these “alternate” electors are unofficial and have as much right to vote in this part of the election as I do. Which, in case you don’t already know, is none.
It’s all just posturing, and trying to look like they’re still “fighting” for Trump, and being prepared in case any court ruling magically reverses time and invalidates today’s electoral college votes.
Okay, this seems to get at the distinction I was trying to get at:
According to this WaPo excerpt, it sounds like these were the actual electors appointed by the Republican Party who would have voted for Trump had Trump won the popular vote? Who (they are claiming) could still become the true EC electors should some court give their state to Trump?
This is not something I have seen in other reports I had seen. It seemed like they were just self-appointed twits who were play-acting at being Repub electors, who I imagine could not be Trump EC electors even if the courts give the state to Trump tomorrow? (Which would cause a shitstorm itself if that happened.)
Okay, I stand corrected there. I got confused about that a bit.
The short version is that federal law states that if a state selects its slate of electors by the safe harbor day, and does so by way of the rules that were in place on election day, then such a slate is binding upon the Congress to be the legal slate from that state.
The law stems from the disputed election of 1876 in an attempt to prevent that debacle from happening again with disputed slates of electors by charting a path where a state could make its electors beyond dispute. Bush v. Gore cited the law with approval and simply assumed that every state would want to take advantage of it.
The legislation that governs how electoral votes will be counted in Congress is the Electoral Count Act. It is long and complex, but to boil it down to the parts relevant to your question:
The Vice President (who chairs the joint session) is required to open the certificate of attainment and any document purporting to be a certificate of attainment for each state. The question has been asked whether this means that I can mail in a “certificate of attainment” for Lyndon LaRouche scribbled on a cocktail napkin and have it opened at the joint session. The VP could probably ignore such an obvious crank, but a document sent in by the Trump electors would likely be opened.
When the joint session receives more than one purported set of electors from a state, there are three scenarios outlined in the statute:
If only one of the returns was certified in compliance with state laws for appointing electors by the safe harbor date, then it must be counted as the true return. For every state but Wisconsin, their electors were certified under state law by the safe harbor date.
If more than two returns meet the safe harbor requirements (because of dueling state governments or state government officials), then neither may be counted unless both chambers agree one is the correct return. This does not apply to any state this cycle.
If no returns meet the safe harbor requirements, one return may be counted if both chambers agree it is the correct return. But the statute further says in this instance that if the chambers disagree on which is the correct return, then the electors certified by the Governor of the state will be counted. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has certified Biden’s electors.
So, even if the renegade Trump electors are able to have their certificates opened by the joint session, the statute dictates that the Biden electors must be the ones counted. One Senator and one Representative may jointly object to the Biden electors, but those electors will be counted unless both chambers vote to reject them. As noted, House members will vote singly and not as state delegations.
On the one hand, it’s reassuring to know that the right outcome does seem certain this time. But it really does not seem robust, the system is just managing to hold up here. Meaning no disrespect to the honorable Republican state officials who have acted correctly this time, we cannot rely on any Republican to act correctly, following precedent or democratic norms, unless it’s spelled out unequivocally by law. Democracy will be in dire straits next time if there’s a close election.
So we have a close election, the system works as it should, and the states controlled by Republicans have acted honorably and followed the law, but the next time it happens we are doomed because this proves that Republicans are a bunch of shitheads that cannot be trusted?
Some key Republican state officials have acted correctly. But the great majority of Republicans in Congress have indeed acted like a bunch of shitheads who cannot be trusted, and there’s every indication that the Republicans who have acted correctly this time are being shunned by their party, to be replaced by the type of dishonorable shitheads that the Republican Party evidently now holds in high esteem.
You haven’t been paying attention, or you’d understand that us libs are already convinced that all-too-many Repubs are shitheads that cannot be trusted. We couldn’t have been sure ahead of time, that those Repub legislators in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania wouldn’t have given the state to Trump. We’ve seen the Repubs in the Senate looking the other way on Trumps indiscretions for his entire term. We’ve seen Repub-controlled states doing voter suppression for years.
We’re delighted, but almost (I say almost) a bit surprised that the Electoral College went off as smoothly as it did today. Oh, did I mention that a Repub state rep in Michigan was hinting that there could be violence?
It’s not “because they’re shitheads.” It’s because they were willing to try it this time. And they know now where they failed. So it seems likely they’ll be willing to try again, maybe when things are more favorable.
The fact that the election is contested at all is worrying. The fact that multiple lawmakers were on board is worrying. The judges not being on board is nice, but judges get appointed by politicians. So what’s to say that stays?
Just because you pass a stress test once doesn’t mean you’re out of the woods if it seems likely more stress tests are coming. That they would even try this is extremely worrying. What if it’s someone who the military would get behind, for instance?
I have a related question. There is a new theory going around amongst Japanese right-wing Trump supporters (you’d be surprised what a weird cesspool Japanese RW Twitter is) that the VP in his role as president of the senate has the power to decide whether to open the sealed electoral votes, and therefore has the power to ultimately decide who wins the presidency.
This is obviously batshit, but does anyone have any idea where it comes from? My guess is they’re just over-interpreting the part where the VP opens and counts the votes. But is this based on any existing legal theory at all?
So what happens if Pence refuses to open the certificates of Biden electors from swing states? Well, bedlam, I’d imagine. It would be unprecedented and is not contemplated in the statute. But Pence is the presiding officer of the session, not the king of it. Like any other meeting of Congress, the body can overrule the decisions of the presiding officer.
I actually don’t think they can. The statute says that the President of the Senate presides over the joint session, and Constitutionally that’s the Vice President. They can overrule him, but I don’t think they can remove him.
And this is exactly what they were hoping to achieve in all the BS they have been slinging, cause confusion among the populace and make them think that there might be something there. With the sole purpose being to fleece more money from confused supporters.
Just… whoa. I have no words. Do you honestly believe the words you type? If so, where have you been since the election? Even my Trumpist poker buddies would disagree with every part of your post.