The questions and hypotheticals being stoked by The Atlantic are 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. 1/
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 involved the legislature. 2/
My goal as a policymaker continues to be working in a bipartisan manner to fulfill our constitutional obligation to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to vote, that voters confidence that the system is fair and that the votes are counted in a timely manner. 3/3
So, are you going to accept a legislator's publicly stated interpretation of the law, instead of a bogus claim by The Atlantic? Or are you going to downvote this comment, too?
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.
The Senate majority leader was not the one quoted in the article. So I don't really care what Corman said in September when they were talking hypotheticals. We now have a real-world situation where the law was broken and votes were counted that arrived after Nov 3rd at 8pm. If these ballots have been comingled with other ballots and the legislature feels that the election was not run fairly, then they will make that decision. I understand what the PA law says, however, the constitution gave the legislatures the power to choose the electors. The PA law may be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause or there may be other ways to circumnavigate the PA law. All I am saying is it is on the table and we should use it if we can. I'm not sure why you are going from thread to thread concern trolling.
The Atlantic was recounting alleged conversations with the GOP chairman, the Senate Majority Leader and a third Republican leader they didn't name. Corman is quoted in that same article:
Although the article was in the "November" issue, it was published on September 23, 2020. You can find that information in the metadata buried in the source.
Corman's tweets (dated 2020-09-24) were in response to the publication of the article on their website.
If you want to remain willfully ignorant of both the law and the on-the-record statements of the PA Republican Senate Majority Leader, that's your choice. But, stop pretending it has any basis in reality.
I'm not "concern trolling". I'm explaining the process to you and anyone else that actually cares. I can point to actual citations of the law, and you have... nothing except wishful thinking.
The PA Senate Majority Leader actually said:
https://twitter.com/jakecorman/status/1309276095984939010?s=21
So, are you going to accept a legislator's publicly stated interpretation of the law, instead of a bogus claim by The Atlantic? Or are you going to downvote this comment, too?
Here's what PA law actually says:
https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Document/NEB4AE6C0343011DA8A989F4EECDB8638?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
(emphasis is mine)
The Senate majority leader was not the one quoted in the article. So I don't really care what Corman said in September when they were talking hypotheticals. We now have a real-world situation where the law was broken and votes were counted that arrived after Nov 3rd at 8pm. If these ballots have been comingled with other ballots and the legislature feels that the election was not run fairly, then they will make that decision. I understand what the PA law says, however, the constitution gave the legislatures the power to choose the electors. The PA law may be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause or there may be other ways to circumnavigate the PA law. All I am saying is it is on the table and we should use it if we can. I'm not sure why you are going from thread to thread concern trolling.
Did you not bother to read the article?
The Atlantic was recounting alleged conversations with the GOP chairman, the Senate Majority Leader and a third Republican leader they didn't name. Corman is quoted in that same article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
Although the article was in the "November" issue, it was published on September 23, 2020. You can find that information in the metadata buried in the source.
Corman's tweets (dated 2020-09-24) were in response to the publication of the article on their website.
If you want to remain willfully ignorant of both the law and the on-the-record statements of the PA Republican Senate Majority Leader, that's your choice. But, stop pretending it has any basis in reality.
I'm not "concern trolling". I'm explaining the process to you and anyone else that actually cares. I can point to actual citations of the law, and you have... nothing except wishful thinking.