WI recount and "safe harbor" deadline

[Okrahoma]

Last time they did a recount it took a month.

There are ~two weeks until the “safe harbor” deadline (Dec 13 I believe?) for certifying the electors so that they can be counted in the total electoral college count.

It seems unlikely that the WI recount (especially the “audit” kind that Greens are touting) can be done before Dec 13, considering how long the last recount in WI took.

So - what happens if on Dec 13 Wisconsin is still counting votes? Do the 10 electoral votes get thrown away or do the pre-recount results stand? Or some other outcome?

[Okrahoma]

To follow up, it seems that the time crunch would be even worse with PA and MI - since the same Dec 13th deadline applies, and the recounts there can not be simply requested by paying enough $. AFAIU, to start a recount in those states you need a concerted effort gathering/certifying signatures in every precinct and filing/winning a court case.

So potentially, even if that is navigated successfully, the recount in PA and MI will not even start until at least a week from now if not longer.

[Robot_Arm]

@Okrahoma

To follow up, it seems that the time crunch would be even worse with PA and MI - since the same Dec 13th deadline applies, and the recounts there can not be simply requested by paying enough $. AFAIU, to start a recount in those states you need a concerted effort gathering/certifying signatures in every precinct and filing/winning a court case.

So potentially, even if that is navigated successfully, the recount in PA and MI will not even start until at least a week from now if not longer.

If there was some sort of hacking or malfeasance that affected the outcome of this election, we need to know; maybe not for this election, but so it never happens again. Republicans (predominantly) have made a big deal of pushing for voter ID laws so that people will have confidence in the results of our elections. What would give me confidence is to have machines that can’t be hacked, and a paper trail that can be examined and audited if need be. The deadline for that is two years.

[adaher]

Even if the result can’t be changed due to deadlines, we still need to know. And if there is strong evidence of hacking, then the Supreme Court should change the result and award the election to Clinton, or mandate re-votes or an extension of the deadlines to do a proper count.

However, if it just ends up being a normal recount with errors having been caused by fairly normal problems, then the deadlines should apply, even if the recount indicates a Clinton win.

[lions_lair99]

@adaher

Even if the result can’t be changed due to deadlines, we still need to know. And if there is strong evidence of hacking, then the Supreme Court should change the result and award the election to Clinton, or mandate re-votes or an extension of the deadlines to do a proper count.

However, if it just ends up being a normal recount with errors having been caused by fairly normal problems, then the deadlines should apply, even if the recount indicates a Clinton win.

And Trump could win by a larger margin. I think there was voter fraud, in favor of Clinton. It just wasn’t enough for her to win.

[adaher]

I wouldn’t rule out some fraud but that’s not something the audit will detect.

[ThisIsTheEnd]

Just follow the 2000 playbook. Start suing early enough to have SCOTUS shut down the recount(s) in time to certify electors.

[AK84]

@ThisIsTheEnd

Just follow the 2000 playbook. Start suing early enough to have SCOTUS shut down the recount(s) in time to certify electors.

It was Gore who sued to suspend the certification of the results, the line of litigation which led to Bush v Gore.

[ThisIsTheEnd]

OK, start appealing early enough to have SCOTUS shut down the recount(s) in time to certify electors.

[Saint_Cad]

@Okrahoma

So - what happens if on Dec 13 Wisconsin is still counting votes? Do the 10 electoral votes get thrown away or do the pre-recount results stand? Or some other outcome?

It depends on the state laws in effect on election day and as Florida showed us, whatever the SCOWisc wants the law to say.

[Skammer]

@lions_lair99

And Trump could win by a larger margin. I think there was voter fraud, in favor of Clinton. It just wasn’t enough for her to win.

Why do you think that, lacking even the smallest shred of evidence that it is true? Do you often believe things for no apparent reason?

[DrCube]

@Skammer

Why do you think that, lacking even the smallest shred of evidence that it is true? Do you often believe things for no apparent reason?

They’re not allowed to lie on talk radio! Rush’s word is all the evidence I need.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Skammer

Why do you think that, lacking even the smallest shred of evidence that it is true? Do you often believe things for no apparent reason?

It wasn’t my post, and you’re probably going to find something about it to quibble with, but, in the spirit of “the smallest shred” of evidence, I offer this PILF report (PDF):

In our small sample of just eight Virginia counties who responded to our public inspection requests, we found 1046 aliens who registered to vote illegally.

The problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities. Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony.

As for Trump’s claim (I haven’t read it, but) it wouldn’t surprise me if it was based off this.

This cringe-worthy Obama interview probably didn’t help things either.