Link and proof of document:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12

I am providing the link and the “juice” first and then breaking it down in my own words and the way I read the document and interpreted it after the quote.

I’m quoting page 8 specifically because this deals with Jan 6th and multiple slates of electors and what is spelled out.

There seems to be A LOT of confusion as to what happens and I had to look it up myself. Spent a few hours on this so I hope it helps.

Here’s the quote:

Receipt of Two Certificates from the Same State Influenced by its historical experience prior to 1887, Congress was particularly concerned in the statute of 1887 with the case of two lists of electors and votes being presented to Congress from the same state. Three different contingencies appear to be provided for in the statute for two lists being presented. In the first instance, two lists would be proffered, but the assumption presented in the law is that only one list would be from electors who were determined to be appointed pursuant to the state election contest statute (as provided for in 3 U.S.C. §5), and that in such case, only those electors should be counted. In the second case, when two lists were proffered as being from two different state authorities who arguably made determinations provided for under 3 U.S.C. §5 (a state statutory election contest determined at least six days prior to December 18, the winner of the state presidential election), the question of which state authority is “the lawful tribunal of such State” to make the decision (and thus the acceptance of those electors’ votes) shall be decided only upon the concurrent agreement of both houses “supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.... ” In the third instance, if there is no determination by a state authority of the question of which slate was lawfully appointed, then the two chambers must agree concurrently to accept the votes of one set of electors; but the two chambers may also concurrently agree not to accept the votes of electors from that state. When the two houses disagree, then the statute states that the votes of the electors whose appointment was certified by the governor of the state shall be counted. It is not precisely clear whether this provision for resolving cases in which the House and Senate vote differently applies only to the last two situations (that is, when either two determinations have allegedly been made under state contest law and procedure, or no such determination has been made); or, instead, also when only one such determination is present. Although this section of the statute is not free from doubt, its structure and its relationship to §5 (and to give effect to §5) seem to indicate that when there is only one determination by the state made in a timely fashion under the state’s election contest law and procedures (even when there are two or more lists or slates of electors presented before Congress), then Congress shall accept that state determination (3 U.S.C. §15) as “conclusive” (3 U.S.C. §5). By this interpretation, the language providing that if the House and Senate split, the question shall be decided in favor of the choice certified by the governor, may not have been intended to be applicable to cases covered by the first clause in the statute in which only one slate or group has been determined, in a timely fashion, to be the electors through the state’s procedures for election contests and controversies. Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives suggests that when a state has settled the matter “in accordance with a law of that state six days before the time for the meeting of electors,” then a controversy over the appointment of electors in that state “shall not be a cause of question in the counting of the electoral vote by Congress.”18 It should be noted that Hinds’ cites no precedent or ruling, but 18 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1907- 1908), vol. 3, §1914, p. 202, referring only to the 1887 statute). Congressional Research Service RL32717 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED 8

Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress merely paraphrases the statute, and it seems likely that this issue of the lawfulness of the determination and certification by a state could be raised and dealt with in the joint session. Precedent subsequent to the statute’s original enactment in 1887 has been sparse. There appears only to have been one example, in 1961, when the governor of the state of Hawaii first certified the electors of Vice President Richard M. Nixon as having been appointed, and then, due to a subsequent recount which determined that Senator John F. Kennedy had won the Hawaii vote, certified Senator Kennedy as the winner. Both slates of electors had met on the prescribed day in December, cast their votes for President and Vice President, and transmitted them according to the federal statute. This was the case even though the recount was apparently not completed until a later date, that is, not until December 28.19 The presiding officer, that is, the President of the Senate, Vice President Nixon, suggested “without the intent of establishing a precedent” that the latter and more recent certification of Senator Kennedy be accepted so as “not to delay the further count of electoral votes.” This was agreed to by unanimous consent.20 Electoral Vote Timetable and Subsequent Action The timetable for the certification, transmission, review, and approval of the electoral votes was established by Congress to avoid a repetition of the extraordinary delay incident to the electoral vote controversy surrounding the 1876 presidential election. In the event that no candidate has received a majority of the electoral vote for President, the election is ultimately to be decided by the House of Representatives in which the names of the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes for President are considered by the House, with each state having one vote. In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes for Vice President, the names of the two candidates receiving the highest number of electoral votes for that post are submitted to the Senate, which elects the Vice President by majority vote of the Senators. The development and current practices for election of the President and Vice President by Congress specified in the Constitution and law are discussed in detail in CRS Report RL32695, Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Contingent Election, by Thomas H. Neale.>

****Translation the best I understand it. ******

On Jan 6th a representative of the House and Senate must object in writing during a joint session in which the electors are unsealed and audibly read aloud. Once that happens, and it will likely happen multiple times due to the fraud in WI,MI,PA,GA,NV,AZ and potentially more states like VA.... at that point the joint session will adjourn and separate back to their respective chambers where they will argue about which slate to accept for no more than 2 hrs. This means the Senate and House will each hear the arguments separately and vote on which slate to accept. After 2 hrs they will meet again in a joint session and their votes will be divulged. IF they agree on the same slate or come to the same conclusion, then that’s it. That will be the slate that is selected.

If they do not both agree to the objection in the same manner, that’s where it gets sticky. There are 3 options that can occur (see above in quoted area)

1- Both slates of electors go forward and a determination is made as far as which get counted. This is pursuant to that specific state’s election contest statute. Only that slate would go forward (This appears to sound like whichever slate represents the popular vote, as no mention of fraud or contested results are mentioned)

2- Two slates are presented from different state authorities....Essentially states that both the senate and house must agree and it must be in accordance to that state’s law (this seems to me like our best shot “based on each states law”) if they broke state law this is where we get them; or so it appears from how I’m reading it.

3- If no determination is made by a state authority...congress and both houses have to vote in concert (unison) to select that states slate of electors.

I’d rather leave this section (1-3) to a pede that’s a lawyer than mislead y’all so I did my best just reading the text and applying common sense. I would have loved to tell you in a concrete fashion what will happen in those 3 instances but I’m not sure even they can tell us tbh. I won’t even get into tbh, because I feel like anything can happen at this juncture of the game where those 3 could potentially be applied.

Let’s move on to the last section and paragraph though because that is clear:

IF* nobody for whatever reason reaches 270 then the House will each get on vote for President per State. That would secure DJT a second term.

iF* the VP candidate doesnt secure 270 then the Senate votes 1 per member. Majority of votes select the VP.

That’s the best I can do, and I hope this helped a little bit. It took me a few hrs of reading and re-reading pages 8 and 9 to understand what I just explained.

Also I read elsewhere on this site that the VP can select either slate of electors at his choosing. That is FALSE! The only reason VP Nixon had this choice in 1961 is because Hawaii’s Gov certified his election once before a recount and once after the recount had taken place which did change the outcome.

(In my estimation this can only happen in Jan of 2021 if there are full forensic audits in each contested state between now and then and an additional re-certification of the election in said states)

So that’s the best I can do from reading this way more In depth document that has been thrown around by commenters.

I would absolutely love if a real no BS lawyer could reply to me and let me know how spit on or off I am here. You (lawyers) most definitely read some words differently than I do just 2- From my interpretation states that each states’ lawful entity of electors would be chosen (we know that this slate would be sent forward by each states LEGISLATURE and not the GOV. based on lawyer jargon.

I hope that this has helped clear up MOST of the confusion on what lays ahead.

May God bless anyone reading this, and pray for President Trump, his lawyers, State Legislatures, and one another that the truth will be dragged into the light come hell or high water!