Refer to 3 U.S. Code § 5 or read the bolded parts below.
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
This has been established as meaning Congress won't challenge states' electoral votes if they resolved controversies and challenges by the safe harbor date. For this election, that means states like Ohio, Texas, Florida, and many more won't be challenged. The swing states did not resolve disputes and can be challenged.
My bad. I misinterpreted your initial comment and the post actually. 1000s of hours implies all 538 EC votes. I was thinking this was targeted at each of the swing state EC votes. I also thought your initial comment meant that since electors were not explicitly challenged by the legislatures, or that they didn't send dueling electors off the bat that that means the Biden slates of EC voters can't be challenged.
The safe harbor date in 2004 was the 5th. Arnebeck's lawsuit definitely went past that deadline.
As it applies to the quoted law above, since Ohio didn't resolve all challenges before the safe harbor date, it was eligible to be contested on January 6th 2005.
Refer to 3 U.S. Code § 5 or read the bolded parts below.
This has been established as meaning Congress won't challenge states' electoral votes if they resolved controversies and challenges by the safe harbor date. For this election, that means states like Ohio, Texas, Florida, and many more won't be challenged. The swing states did not resolve disputes and can be challenged.
My bad. I misinterpreted your initial comment and the post actually. 1000s of hours implies all 538 EC votes. I was thinking this was targeted at each of the swing state EC votes. I also thought your initial comment meant that since electors were not explicitly challenged by the legislatures, or that they didn't send dueling electors off the bat that that means the Biden slates of EC voters can't be challenged.
Right. A frivolous delay is what I think OP is suggesting. That would be illegal and would set a precedent to be used against us someday.
Was Ohio contested before safe harbor in 2004 when democrats challenged it in January? https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3916189/posts
Yes. Here is one article discussing some of the challenges:. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2004/dec/03/kerry-campaign-joins-recount-lawsuit-in-ohio/
The safe harbor date in 2004 was the 5th. Arnebeck's lawsuit definitely went past that deadline.
As it applies to the quoted law above, since Ohio didn't resolve all challenges before the safe harbor date, it was eligible to be contested on January 6th 2005.