I’m trying to figure it out. What good is contested electors, if it takes both houses to object to get them thrown out. I have little faith in the courts tossing anything.
How did they switch the HI electors from the rightful winner (Nixon) to JFK in 1960s?
There is precedent for this. Look up the contested election of 1876.
As per the US Consitution, on the second Monday of December the state legislatures cast their electoral vote. Dueling slate of electors to be sent by state legistlatures to us congress.
President of the senate has the responsibility to choose the electors on Jan 5.
If (and when) all of the evidence of fraud is publicly accepted as truth, the president of the senate (Pence) will choose which slate of electors to "count".
Okay, I was going off this:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12
It says you have to try to figure which ones the State law allows, unless I am mistaken. I am just trying to figure it out.
PAGE 11:
Receipt of Two Certificates from the Same State
Influenced by its historical experience priorto 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 differentstate 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 bothhouses “supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.... ” In the third instance, if there is nodetermination 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.
So it can get repeatedly messy. That means that we are going to need to Senators with balls.
the VP chooses which to read.
That's it.
Nixon chose to read the Kennedy ballots. He could've chosen his own. It was 100% his choice.
With the 7 dueling ballots, Pence picks the next president.
Okay, because I read this and thought it was based on both Houses and they try to pick the one the State laws says to pick.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12
Really trying to figure out which will be the one done.
If the state actually follows the federal constitution in appointed electors -- meaning, they followed the laws that the legislature wrote -- then it would be incumbent upon Mike Pence to recognize that.
That's not what happened though.
It is now incumbent upon Mike Pence to NOT recognize them, and do what he thinks is the right thing.