Election Litigation Status

[Res Ipsa]

It seems to me that the current strategy involves using the general confusion the litigation caused among elements of the public to support a challenge on the floor of the results from the Electoral College.

As I understand it, that requires a member from the House to call the results from a state into question, have a Senator sign on to the complaints and then both chambers debate the issue before voting on whether or not to accept the electoral votes from that state.

So we should expect to see PA, GA, AZ, MI, and WI challenges. This will happen after the GA runoff election, and it seems unlikely that every Republican Senator will vote to disenfranchise all of the voters in any state based on the evidence to leave Pence casting the deciding vote. But it will also serve to undermine Biden and Harris in the same way an impeachment vote influences how legitimate parties see the President. In other words, it will further calcify the partisan emotional divide and affect his administrations ability to enact an agenda before Biden even takes office. That's the best case scenario. Worst case? Phew.

That partly depends on whether states meet the requirements of the Safe Harbor date. If the elections are certified and all challenges resolved, Congress cannot challenge the electors in January. I'm not sure, but I believe all that is required is that the results be certified today and no election challenges are pending. I don't think the federal lawsuits, like the Kraken suits, have any affect on the Safe Harbor deadline. That's what the judges in the federal cases are saying.

So, if courts that have bona fide election challenges brought in compliance with state law issue an order by the end of today resolving the challenge, Congress cannot reject the official slate of electors.

Just a couple of details. A challenge at the joint session in January requires a written challenge signed by a house member and a senator. It does not have to initiate with a house member. There will be all kinds of speeches and drama. Those don't count -- only written objections. When a written objection is made, the process of accepting the electors stops. The two houses of congress meet separately, and both houses must vote to decline the electors. Otherwise the slate is accepted.

The language of the statute is very dense. But, as I understand it, if the state misses the safe harbor deadline and multiple slates of electors are sent by different actors in the state government, Congress picks which slate to accept in a manner that would give Relief Society the majority of votes.

I don't think going through that process would undermine Biden and Harris any more than Trump's impeachment undermined him.

[Res Ipsa]

Rep. Daniel McCarthy Announces Arizona Legislators Invoked Article 2, Section 1 – Meaning Arizona is Officially a Contested Election...?

Care to explain what you think this means? Last I heard the Legislature had closed due to Guiliani exposing a number of Republican legislators to Covid.

More of Sub's usual ignorance and failure to post a link. An election contest is a term of art, and is governed by state law. Two election contests were filed in Arizona. One was voluntarily dismissed. The other was ruled against by the trial court, and a motion for an appeal is pending before the State Supreme Court. Legislators blathering in a press conference is not an election contest.

[honorentheos]

Care to explain what you think this means? Last I heard the Legislature had closed due to Guiliani exposing a number of Republican legislators to Covid.

More of Sub's usual ignorance and failure to post a link. An election contest is a term of art, and is governed by state law. Two election contests were filed in Arizona. One was voluntarily dismissed. The other was ruled against by the trial court, and a motion for an appeal is pending before the State Supreme Court. Legislators blathering in a press conference is not an election contest.

Yeah, I know. I'm just curious if subbie will go as far as to offer an explanation for why he posted it in the first place. He likes to toss out these silly headlines from disreputable sources like the matter, and on the rare occasion where he responds to a critique of the source he will act as if he did so with intent that differed from how it was received. So, I'd be interested in his sharing what he felt this was worth bringing to the board's attention.

[honorentheos]

Just a couple of details. A challenge at the joint session in January requires a written challenge signed by a house member and a senator. It does not have to initiate with a house member. There will be all kinds of speeches and drama. Those don't count -- only written objections. When a written objection is made, the process of accepting the electors stops. The two houses of congress meet separately, and both houses must vote to decline the electors. Otherwise the slate is accepted.

The language of the statute is very dense. But, as I understand it, if the state misses the safe harbor deadline and multiple slates of electors are sent by different actors in the state government, Congress picks which slate to accept in a manner that would give Relief Society the majority of votes.

I don't think going through that process would undermine Biden and Harris any more than Trump's impeachment undermined him.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/3 ... ege-441459

I don't believe it matters if the state misses their safe harbor deadline or fails in compliance. As I understand it, there just needs to be a challenge by a member of the House and Senate, then it is debated and voted on, and it does have the remote but possible chance of discounting the electoral votes of a state of the challenge is successful in getting both House and Senate support.

As to whether or not it will affect Biden...well. The litigation has had an effect on confidence and support. It isn't clear to me that a year from now we won't have it brought up regularly as an astrix to Biden's presidency in similar ways more liberal/progressive types would toss in Trump being impeached by the House. Turns out the American experiment gets to die a death by a thousand paper cuts.

[Res Ipsa]

Just a couple of details. A challenge at the joint session in January requires a written challenge signed by a house member and a senator. It does not have to initiate with a house member. There will be all kinds of speeches and drama. Those don't count -- only written objections. When a written objection is made, the process of accepting the electors stops. The two houses of congress meet separately, and both houses must vote to decline the electors. Otherwise the slate is accepted.

The language of the statute is very dense. But, as I understand it, if the state misses the safe harbor deadline and multiple slates of electors are sent by different actors in the state government, Congress picks which slate to accept in a manner that would give Relief Society the majority of votes.

I don't think going through that process would undermine Biden and Harris any more than Trump's impeachment undermined him.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/3 ... ege-441459

I don't believe it matters if the state misses their safe harbor deadline or fails in compliance. As I understand it, there just needs to be a challenge by a member of the House and Senate, then it is debated and voted on, and it does have the remote but possible chance of discounting the electoral votes of a state of the challenge is successful in getting both House and Senate support.

As to whether or not it will affect Biden...well. The litigation has had an effect on confidence and support. It isn't clear to me that a year from now we won't have it brought up regularly as an astrix to Biden's presidency in similar ways more liberal/progressive types would toss in Trump being impeached by the House. Turns out the American experiment gets to die a death by a thousand paper cuts.

The Politico article makes some questionable assertions. The Safe Harbor law is clear on this point: the “safe harbor” it provides is safety from Congressional challenge. The portion of the statute that allows challenges also says it does not apply if the Safe Harbor deadline is met.

The Politico also fails to adequately distinguish between a challenge to a state’s electors and what happens if multiple slates of electors are presented.

ETA: Here’s a good interview in The Guardian that explains it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... epublicans

[subgenius]

Rep. Daniel McCarthy Announces Arizona Legislators Invoked Article 2, Section 1 – Meaning Arizona is Officially a Contested Election...?

Care to explain what you think this means? Last I heard the Legislature had closed due to Guiliani exposing a number of Republican legislators to Covid.

https://t.co/lDajI5lOMM
You know what i know.

[subgenius]

More of Sub's usual ignorance and failure to post a link. An election contest is a term of art, and is governed by state law. Two election contests were filed in Arizona. One was voluntarily dismissed. The other was ruled against by the trial court, and a motion for an appeal is pending before the State Supreme Court. Legislators blathering in a press conference is not an election contest.

Yeah, I know. I'm just curious if subbie will go as far as to offer an explanation for why he posted it in the first place. He likes to toss out these silly headlines from disreputable sources like the matter, and on the rare occasion where he responds to a critique of the source he will act as if he did so with intent that differed from how it was received. So, I'd be interested in his sharing what he felt this was worth bringing to the board's attention.

I posted link since your google doesn't work. Watch the video and determine for yourself if words from the horse's mouth is a silly headline.

[Res Ipsa]

The words actually come from a horse’s ass. The AZ legislature passed a law as part of its election code that spells out how to contest an election. A letter from some state legislators isn’t it. This was for you lazy rubes.

[Res Ipsa]

The US Supreme Court has denied the motion for an emergency stay filed by Mike Kelly in PA. Alito had referred it to the whole court. No dissent was noted on the order.

Kelly can file a regular petition for certiorari, but the court has basically said it’s not going to decide this case on an accelerated basis. It’s also not going to block PAs access to the Safe Harbor.

[subgenius]

The words actually come from a horse’s ass. The AZ legislature passed a law as part of its election code that spells out how to contest an election. A letter from some state legislators isn’t it. This was for you lazy rubes.

silly me with my blatant punctuation for rubes.