Posted on 09/25/2020 3:34:35 PM PDT by lightman
HARRISBURG — It is the nightmare scenario Pennsylvania election officials have fretted over for months: a knock-down, drag-out fight over which presidential candidate will win the state and snag its coveted electoral votes.
Now, the head of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania has fueled fears of chaos after Election Day, raising the specter that his party could break with tradition and allow the GOP-controlled legislature to choose a slate of presidential electors to cast the state’s votes for Donald Trump — even if the president doesn’t win the popular vote.
In comments to The Atlantic made public this week, state Republican Chairman Lawrence Tabas suggested that he had spoken with Trump campaign officials about the possibility of bypassing the results of the popular vote, should there be uncertainty or disputes over the validity of ballots cast. The U.S. Constitution, Tabas said, allows state legislatures to choose presidential electors.
“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Tabas told the magazine, referencing the Trump campaign. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options.”
His remarks, coupled with those of state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R., Centre), have placed the state’s political world on alert for a constitutional showdown, with Democrats claiming it would amount to stealing the election.
Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa (D., Allegheny) called it “an affront to all voters and our democracy as a whole.”
“Voters must determine our next president,” Costa said, “not a few Trump loyalists handpicked by Republican legislative leaders.”
Tabas did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. In a statement, state GOP officials said Tabas' comments were taken out of context to spin a “pre-emptive farce that projects conspiracy, delay, and even violence onto Republicans.”
Corman said in a series of tweets Thursday that his comments to The Atlantic — suggesting that the legislature has the power to step in and appoint electors if there isn’t a clean count of the popular vote — were “hypotheticals” and “pure conjecture.”
“I have had zero contact with the Trump campaign or others about changing Pennsylvania’s long-standing tradition of appointing electors consistent with the popular vote,” he said. “The General Assembly is obligated to follow the law and the law is the Election Code, which clearly defines how electors are chosen and does not involve the legislature.”
A spokesperson for state House Republican leaders said there have been no discussions about the legislature taking over the process of nominating electors.
“We have had no discussions about departing from the practice of appointing electors consistent with the popular vote,” said Jason Gottesman, spokesperson for House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R., Centre).
The Atlantic, quoting sources in the Republican party at both the state and national levels, said the Trump campaign has been making contingency plans to claim widespread fraud during the election, giving them the opportunity to contest results in the days and weeks after Nov. 3.
In the face of such chaos, Republican-controlled legislatures in swing states like Pennsylvania could step in to choose electors who would be loyal to the president.
In most states, electors are nominated by political parties. They are critical players: When voters cast their ballot for president on Election Day, they are actually voting for that candidate’s slate of electors. Those electors then get together a few weeks after the election to formally cast their ballots for the candidate they represent.
Pennsylvania law dictates that each political party’s presidential candidate gets to pick his own electors. It’s a “winner-take-all” state, with 20 electoral college votes.
Trump could “pollute what we are hearing about the election and try to convince people that he hasn’t lost when in fact he has,” said Dan Baer, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
And if the validity of ballots cast on Nov. 3 is called into question, the Pennsylvania legislature could decide to offer its own slate of electors by invoking Article II of the U.S. Constitution. That section grants state legislatures the right to designate the manner in which electors are selected.
In the 1876 presidential election, three states sent two competing slates of electors to Congress. That precipitated a constitutional crisis, Baer said, “because there was no way to deal with it.”
The Republican party ultimately won the electoral college by one vote.
“I don’t think that’s likely but we’re in a moment where if we don’t think through what might happen — part of being responsible is trying to think through the scenarios that could happen even if they aren’t likely,” Baer said.
Exactly how Republicans in Pennsylvania would put forth their own slate of electors is unclear. Members of the party said they have not discussed the process.
Rep. Kevin Boyle (D., Philadelphia), minority chair of the House State Government Committee, said the GOP, in theory, could pass a resolution that doesn’t require Gov. Tom Wolf’s approval. That’s what lawmakers in Florida considered doing in 2000 before the U.S. Supreme Court settled the contested presidential race.
“If they are trying to circumvent the governor, that’s the form of legislative direction they would go on,” Boyle said.
Lyndsay Kensinger, spokesperson for Wolf, said Thursday, “Any scheme to undermine the public’s confidence in the election process for political gain is an affront to the core values of our nation’s democracy.”
Wolf and Republican leaders are in the midst of a contentious fight over how to best change the state’s election laws to allow for a quicker and less cumbersome vote count in a critical election year.
The state Supreme Court earlier this month handed Wolf a victory when it extended the deadline for mail-in ballots to be returned, allowed voters to submit their ballots through satellite drop boxes, and restricted the residency requirements of poll watchers.
Republicans had asked the court to issue a stay, but that request was denied Thursday. GOP leaders say they plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, while a similar federal case brought by the Trump campaign is still pending.
Left unresolved is a change counties say is critical to ensuring votes are quickly tallied: allowing election boards to begin processing mail-in and absentee ballots before 7 a.m. on Election Day.
“We all want a timely and accurate count,” said Adam Bonin, a Democratic election lawyer in Philadelphia. He said such a change is the best way to achieve that goal.
“Otherwise, Republicans are creating the very crisis that would potentially enable them … to steal Pennsylvania’s electoral votes,” he said.
If the usual suspect Philly precincts count votes equaling 120% of registered voters, and they are 100% for the Rats, the Legislature has every right to void that.
‘Colorado passed this law.’
in fact. sixteen states have enacted this bill, but until states whose EV’s total 270 have also enacted it, it has no effect of law...thus, no states apportion their votes in this manner...
Looking at Wikipedia site it shows: Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. It's pending in: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina.
They've voted that they will do it once enough states to equal 270 electoral votes likewise vote to adopt the strategy.
“Each State shall appoint, in a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors...”
It could not be more clear. If the Pennsylvania Legislature so chooses, it can appoint Electors directly. The Florida Legislature was going to do just that in 2000, yet another reason the USSC never should have heard the Bush v. Gore case.
“When the Constitution is silent, authority resides with the States or the people,” Thomas wrote.
Imagine how angry these states will be if Trump wins the popular vote. That would mean Trump would get Oregon's electoral votes. Antifa would go ballistic.
At the general election to be held in the year 1940, and every fourth year thereafter, there shall be elected by the qualified electors of the Commonwealth, persons to be known as electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, and referred to in this act as presidential electors, equal in number to the whole number of senators and representatives to which this State may be entitled in the Congress of the United States.
25 P.S.§ 3191
1937, June 3, P.L. 1333, art. XV, § 1501.
Imagine how angry these states will be if Trump wins the popular vote.
Compact Clause
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/75/compact-clause
- - - - - - - -
Congress is not about to give up ANY of it’s authority over elections.
.
True, libertylover.
And, thus, my plan...
The EC is enumerated by the number House members (435), Senators (100), and three for DC. That totals 538; half of which is 269, which sets the majority number at 270.
That should remain the enumeration until the numbers of any of the three components change.
The EC Vote that represents a HOUSE District should go to the candidate who wins the popular vote IN THAT DISTRICT.
The EC Votes that represent the SENATE seats should go the candidate who wins the popular vote IN THAT STATE.
And, lastly, the three EC Votes that fall to DC should go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in DC.
The prospective addition of PR and DC as States could incorporate the same model.
This puts and keeps importance on EVERY VOTE.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.