I'm not buying this claim: "But if the outcome was uncertain at Midnight, the State violated the deadline, and its election is void…"
Mainly because it flies in the face of accepted practice over the last few decades.
We have at least one ironclad legal argument: states acted in violation of their constitutions. And if that doesn't get the "results" overturned, no legal action will.
I agree we are more likely to get success with the simple fact that states acted in violation of their own constitutions and laws.
It does fly in the face of accepted practice. But it is also correct. Congress mandated the first Tuesday in November as federal election day. Therefore, anything that happens before and after that day doesn't count, more so after than before.
That being said, it's one of a squillion laws that are conveniently ignored by all parties.
To get technical, the Constitution puts the time, place and manner of elections in the hands of the state. But to insure continuity of government, it also specifically gives Congress the power to make laws that override this, when it comes to federal elections. That's how we got an election day to begin with.
I certainly would like to reform elections so that we get it all done in a day. There was an Italian pede a few days ago who said that each polling place in Italy handles at most 1,000 people and everything is paper based.
We need to distributed the process and reduce the impact that a single location can have on the results. If that means hiring more workers, so be it. Save on legal fees.
YEP. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to get it done in one day anyway. Give everyone that day off, close all businesses like any other federal holiday, and do it.
All this early voting/mail in voting/absentee voting bullshit is part of the problem, since it all weakens election integrity.
I'm not buying this claim: "But if the outcome was uncertain at Midnight, the State violated the deadline, and its election is void…"
Mainly because it flies in the face of accepted practice over the last few decades.
We have at least one ironclad legal argument: states acted in violation of their constitutions. And if that doesn't get the "results" overturned, no legal action will.
I agree we are more likely to get success with the simple fact that states acted in violation of their own constitutions and laws.
It does fly in the face of accepted practice. But it is also correct. Congress mandated the first Tuesday in November as federal election day. Therefore, anything that happens before and after that day doesn't count, more so after than before.
That being said, it's one of a squillion laws that are conveniently ignored by all parties.
To get technical, the Constitution puts the time, place and manner of elections in the hands of the state. But to insure continuity of government, it also specifically gives Congress the power to make laws that override this, when it comes to federal elections. That's how we got an election day to begin with.
I certainly would like to reform elections so that we get it all done in a day. There was an Italian pede a few days ago who said that each polling place in Italy handles at most 1,000 people and everything is paper based.
We need to distributed the process and reduce the impact that a single location can have on the results. If that means hiring more workers, so be it. Save on legal fees.
YEP. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to get it done in one day anyway. Give everyone that day off, close all businesses like any other federal holiday, and do it.
All this early voting/mail in voting/absentee voting bullshit is part of the problem, since it all weakens election integrity.
I do like his way of thinking.