Election Litigation Status

[Res Ipsa]

Change “court to count.”

[Res Ipsa]

The city of Detroit has filed a motion for sanctions against the Great Lakes Kraken. The motion includes barring Sidney Powell et al from practice in the district and referral to the bar association for discipline. I don’t recall ever seeing a request this tough.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/d ... ssion=true

[subgenius]

Change “court to count.”

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold an oversight hearing to examine irregularities in the 2020 election Wednesday morning at 10:00 AM ET.

[subgenius]

The city of Detroit has filed a motion for sanctions against the Great Lakes Kraken. The motion includes barring Sidney Powell et al from practice in the district and referral to the bar association for discipline. I don’t recall ever seeing a request this tough.

wow - Sidney must've hit a nerve.

[canpakes]

ETA "Russia!"

You certainly do like to support politicians compromised by both.
: D

[canpakes]

Joe Biden, allegedly the most popular Democrat to date, just spoke to a sparse gathering at Pullman yards in Atlanta. He was rallying support for Ossman, except he called him Orsman (tricky teleprompter, yet again).
Yep, you guys are right- that's just more evidence of record breaking votes.

The evidence of record breaking votes is.... drumroll....the court of the record breaking votes.

Poor butthurt little facist.

Don’t forget the record-breaking number of failed lawsuits by the other guy. That seems to be aggravating his butthurt.

[canpakes]

The city of Detroit has filed a motion for sanctions against the Great Lakes Kraken. The motion includes barring Sidney Powell et al from practice in the district and referral to the bar association for discipline. I don’t recall ever seeing a request this tough.

wow - Sidney must've hit a nerve.

Well, she certainly hasn’t hit on a scrap of actual evidence. Might as well be an aggravating failure, to drive home the fact of her incompetence.

[honorentheos]

Sure. Here is 3 U.S.C. § 5, which is the Safe Harbor provision.

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

"shall be conclusive" and "shall govern in the counting" are clear and unambiguous. "hereinafter regulated" includes § 15, which appears to be the section you are talking about. Because the selection of electors under this provision is "conclusive," what is there to vote on?

Ok. But here's the language from § 15 that still seems to indicate the above does not stop the objection from going to separate sessions:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

First, move to separate session. Then section 6 is cited which for all appearances seems to apply to the vote, not whether or not the President of the Senate/VP allows the vote to take place. Here is where section 5 gets referenced, and seems particularly concerned with questions regarding which set of multiple electors submitted should be counted:

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

Again, I've only seen sources make the case that certification within the safe harbor provision will almost certainly prevent the results of the electoral college being overturned. But almost no source that argued from the text makes the argument this prevents an objection from being able to move to debate in the House and Senate. Most of those arguments seem to be baffled that anyone would push this move when it's almost certainly doomed to failure.

If the concern is only that Trump could somehow or other end up as President on January 21, then I agree. It's almost impossible as long as there is a majority of Senators and House members committed to upholding democracy over partisanship.

But if the concern is with a challenge resulting in debate that serves to undermine the presidency of Joe Biden, then I think that's likely. Less so if Mitch is threatening Republican Senators who are thinking about it...but January 6 is more 2020 than 2021 so I won't take a bet that it doesn't happen. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think I am though I'm more hopeful with the move from McConnell.

[Moksha]

It's almost impossible as long as there is a majority of Senators and House members committed to upholding democracy over partisanship.

Many Republican members have already shown their hand.

[honorentheos]

It's almost impossible as long as there is a majority of Senators and House members committed to upholding democracy over partisanship.

Many Republican members have already shown their hand.

Have they? Like, House and Senate members have shown their hands and there's a threat of a majority voting to overturn the results of the electoral college?

You sure?