No, it would devolve to the state legislature, which ultimately is the body that appoints electors. All the disputed states except Nevada are Republican dominated state legislatures
Seems like it. Now, the PA General Assembly is not going to ignore the popular vote of the PA. PA since the very first election in 1788 has held a popular vote to choose electors. It’s part of their tradition. However, if the courts determine that the entire election (in PA) can’t be trusted, then there are provisions for a re-vote on state/federal level down ballot items, but the presidency is different than all those other elections. The presidential popular election exists at the pleasure of the state legislature. If the popular vote does not exist, there is no structure for revoting: the day is set by federal statute as the first Tuesday in November. Without a popular vote, it goes directly to the state legislature to vote on. AFAIK there is NO legal basis for what to do next besides some foundational constitutional texts, and all they say is “the state legislatures choose the electors.” So, a simple majority in both houses would seem to do the trick.
But couldn't the state leg decide they want to hold a revote as their method of deciding new electors? I don't see a legal/constitutional reason they can't.
Electors don't vote on party lines, the state legislature for each state tells the electors how to vote.
If they attempt to vote any other way, the state lege can step in and tell the Electoral College to dismiss that vote and elector
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
The decision Monday was a loss for "faithless electors," who argued that under the Constitution they have discretion to decide which candidate to support.
Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said Electoral College delegates have "no ground for reversing"
Kagan's opinion noted that the original Electoral College system created by the framers of the Constitution failed to anticipate the growth of political parties. By 1796, the first contested election after George Washington's retirement, the system exploded in disarray, with two consecutive Electoral College "fiascos."
That led to passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, "facilitating the Electoral College ... as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party line voting," Kagan wrote.
Nothing in the Constitution prevents the states from "taking away presidential electors' voting discretion..."
There’d be no revote, it’d go to the electoral delegates to vote based on party lines, which would advantage Trump.
No, it would devolve to the state legislature, which ultimately is the body that appoints electors. All the disputed states except Nevada are Republican dominated state legislatures
Seems like it. Now, the PA General Assembly is not going to ignore the popular vote of the PA. PA since the very first election in 1788 has held a popular vote to choose electors. It’s part of their tradition. However, if the courts determine that the entire election (in PA) can’t be trusted, then there are provisions for a re-vote on state/federal level down ballot items, but the presidency is different than all those other elections. The presidential popular election exists at the pleasure of the state legislature. If the popular vote does not exist, there is no structure for revoting: the day is set by federal statute as the first Tuesday in November. Without a popular vote, it goes directly to the state legislature to vote on. AFAIK there is NO legal basis for what to do next besides some foundational constitutional texts, and all they say is “the state legislatures choose the electors.” So, a simple majority in both houses would seem to do the trick.
How do you know this?
What worries me is cucked Republicans going "Well, it seems like most people in PA wanted Biden so we're going to give him the electors".
I wonder if they could split their electors, 10 and 10?
they already said they wouldn't intervene. deep state gonna deep state
The PA state legislature could even just not appoint electors at all if they don't have confidence in the legitimacy of this election.
Nobody gets to 270, then it goes to the house of representatives where each state would get 1 vote.
I don’t think they can decide to not choose electors. They could fail to appoint electors in time, but even that’s probably illegal.
But couldn't the state leg decide they want to hold a revote as their method of deciding new electors? I don't see a legal/constitutional reason they can't.
^ This is the likely scenario
Electors don't vote on party lines, the state legislature for each state tells the electors how to vote.
If they attempt to vote any other way, the state lege can step in and tell the Electoral College to dismiss that vote and elector
That’s fascinating. The Constitution does not foresee political parties and needed the 12th amendment to account for them.
7 electors defected back in 2016.
I think the founders DID forsee them but explicitly warned against them.
They didn't want parties. Washington didn't want parties.