The SCOTUS decision just means the president cannot be held legally accountable for his actions (or near enough). It does not mean he is a dictator and can decree whatever he wants and it will happen. But, he can try mostly without consequence. Maybe he will get away with it which means there really is no downside to trying whatever he wants.
No. The House does not get to decide who won a state’s electoral votes. They only vote if one candidate doesn’t have a majority of votes from electors appointed. No certification, no electors appointed.
I think they mean a contingent election:
What would happen if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes? In these circumstances, the 12th Amendment also provides that the House of Representatives would elect the President, and the Senate would elect the Vice President, in a procedure known as “contingent election.” Contingent election has been implemented twice in the nation’s history under the 12th Amendment: first, to elect the President in 1825, and second, the Vice President in 1837.
In a contingent election, the House would choose among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state, regardless of population, casts a single vote for President in a contingent election. Representatives of states with two or more Representatives would therefore need to conduct an internal poll within their state delegation to decide which candidate would receive the state’s single vote. A majority of state votes, 26 or more, is required to elect, and the House must vote “immediately” and “by ballot.” Additional precedents exist from 1825, but they would not be binding on the House in a contemporary election. In a contingent election, the Senate elects the Vice President, choosing one of the two candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts a single vote, and the votes of a majority of the whole Senate, 51 or more, are necessary to elect. The District of Columbia, which is not a state, would not participate in a contingent election, despite the fact that it casts three electoral votes.
The issue being worried about is enough republican officials refuse to certify their state elections which kicks it to the House as above.
That’s exactly what I was talking about. And unless some faithless elector decides to cast their vote for, say, RFK Jr., the only way it goes to the House is if there’s an electoral tie.
That would only happen if:
A) There was a third candidate who got some electoral votes, preventing either the Democratic or Republican candidate from having a majority.
Or:
B) There was a tie.
If a state doesn’t certify, their votes don’t count anymore and the total number of votes is decreased.
If the number of electors lawfully appointed by any State pursuant to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors that is issued under section 5 is fewer than the number of electors to which the State is entitled under section 3, or if an objection the grounds for which are described in subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) has been sustained, the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom the objection was sustained.
The only way they can steal the election by not certifying is if they can get officials in blue states to not certify, therefore giving Trump the majority. If red states don’t certify, you’re just making it easier for the Democrats to win.
Was discussing future politics with a couple of friends, yesterday, including post-Chump Republicans. One guy observed that the parties appear to be changing demographics, with the Rs appealing more to the less educated working class. We all had the impression that the Rs’ future success likely depended on keeping up efforts to disenfranchise likely D voters, and to undermine confidence in democratic institutions - including elections. None of us really foresaw “reasonable, moderate Rs” regaining control of the R party.
Hope we are proven wrong.
This is an example of the “but what if we didn’t?” strategy that the QOP has been running for a while now. A lot of things run on the assumption that people will do things the way they are expected to, as opposed to either just flipping over the table or taking some arcane reading of any existing rule/law.
When some one comes along and just refuses to play by the accepted rules, a lot of folks just freeze up.
Also, I suspect that most of the people involved in this plan, on the local level, are True Believers. They really believe that in the last election, Trump got more votes, and someone screwed with those numbers.
It will be a bit harder for them to commit treason when they’re looking at their own numbers, that they know they didn’t mess with, and, seeing that Harris is in the lead, simply declare that Trump has won.
And of those who do take that leap, well, the numbers will be public knowledge. When it goes to court, everyone will see how they’re just ignoring the actual numbers, in district after district. Anything that blatant has little chance of success, and if it did succeed, would lead to a civil war.
He could personally get a gun and murder all of the people trying to stop democracy. The Supreme Court gives him protection for that, but of course, it’s not something Biden would do. Anything else, and it comes down to him telling someone else to do something. And then, the question isn’t what he can say; it’s what will be obeyed.
Or, what if NC, GA, PA, and NV are all won by Harris; all have R administrations (I think), and they all refuse to certify. Now, Trump has a majority of the certified votes.
Edited: Oh, wait. PA has a Dem gov; who certifies the results? If Sec of State is MAGA and they have to certify, and they don’t, that’s the problem.
Yes, that could do it if it gave the majority to Trump.
You are underestimating the power of a true believer to rationalize anything. Last resort: “We have to cheat to counter the obvious cheating that’s going on in the urban counties.”
NC and PA have D Governors, maybe other state officials in PA.
GA has a governor and SOS who are R but wouldn’t do DJT’s bidding in 2020 and likely won’t this time either.
NV is not so clear. The Gov is R but has said 2020 election wasn’t stolen and he isn’t too MAGAish from what I know.
MI, PA, and WI all have varying degrees of D control in top state offices and as I understand it they would likely be able to certify results even if some R counties try to pull shenanigans.
Thank you for the investigations that I was too lazy to do.
I guess the best way to put it is that it’s possible, if there are “true believers” in the right positions, and I was bringing up where some of those “right positions” might reside. It’s a scary proposition that we are this close to anarchy.
In PA the Sec of the Commonwealth was appointed by Shapiro (D) and is a Republican. I doubt he is MAGA for that reason.
Also, the legislature in PA is split with Rs controlling the Senate and Ds controlling the House. I don’t think they would play a role in any shenanigans but good to know.
Plus I think Shapiro would have to sign off on any certification.
But what kind of cheating? These people aren’t talking about changing votes, or stuffing the ballot boxes. They talking about “refusing to certify” the election by just ignoring the vote counts. And that kind of cheating is pretty blatant. You might have a few places with people willing to be that blatant, but they will be quickly dealt with in the courts. I don’t think there will be enough of these kinds of places to really affect the overall outcome.
And again, it’s so blatant that, if I’m wrong, and Republican officials all over the country do this, well, then, it’s civil war time. I can’t see such a blatant steal going unopposed. The states that voted Blue and certified their votes will not stand for this. Any Democrat elected to Congress will refuse to cooperate with anything the false government tries to do. Chaos will reign.
(my emphasis)
The local-level rat-fuckery is not going unopposed. That’s the whole point of Democracy Docket and Marc Elias’s advance efforts. Most of the potential bad actors are already exposed (Rolling Stone article, Rachel Maddow, etc.) and the remedial filings, lawsuits, and countersuits to overcome the bad-faith officials are already drafted.
There’s an idea floating out there that a some number of local officials somewhere can summarily “refuse to certify” and suddenly that whole state’s election edifice comes crashing down. And that it will happen in every single swing state, and that will be it – the election is then thrown to the House! Thrown to the Supreme Court! That’s just not how it’s going to go down.
Up until Thomas, Alito, and Cannon I had faith in the court system.
Had.
If Trump loses the election, it’ll be interesting to see how many people are willing to put their own freedom on the line to see that he makes it into office. By now, they’ve got to know Trump has no loyalty. He didn’t help any of the little people involved in storming the capitol on January 6, he didn’t provide assistance to his allies charged in the Georgia election case, and even a loyal lickspittle like Giuliani, a man who threw away his life for Trump, doesn’t get rwarded for his loyalty. Trump’s got his true believers, it’s true, but does he have enough to throw a wrench in the election process?
Truly, I hope we never find out.