Which is wholly irrelevant. The argument that not having counted all the votes by inauguration constitutes no majority is circular logic. If no majority means the right to choose devolves on the house, and not having counted all the votes means there’s no majority, then the house has the right to choose the president up to the point they count the 270th electoral vote for a candidate. Which is a completely nonsense claim.
To reiterate: there is no time limit for congress to count electoral votes. This entire argument is based on the above obviously specious argument. Also, the earlier mentioned deadline is the only date mentioned in the entire amendment. So where is he getting his idea that the Senate has to vote on VP by a certain date? The only possible way for that argument not to be plucked out of thin air is to treat the entire section devoted to choosing the VP as contingent upon the house not selecting a president.
And, even with all that, the entire point is moot because the clause he relies on is superseded by the 20th amendment. Even if he could convince judges that the 12th amendment is full of circular logic and has been misapplied since its inception, he can’t convince them that the 20th amendment doesn’t exist
wait this is complicated.Because i think your’e implying that “no Cruz wouldnt do that”, but literally answering no to the headline means nothing would stop him, implying the ridiculous scenario will happen.
On your end, yes, but the electors cast separate votes for president and VP. Normally that makes no difference. Electors are bound by honor (and frequently by law) to vote that state’s winning P-VP ticket.
Weirdness lurks in the cracks. It’s possible for a state to have a different P-VP party ticket than other states, but that hasn’t happened in a long time. It’s also possible for an elector to be faithless on only one of their votes, rather than both, so the P and VP electoral counts could be different. That almost happened in 2016, but it was invalidated.
The Electoral Counting Act is not irrelevant and does set time limits and the specific date for counting the votes: January 6th. Circular logic on Ted Cruz’s part, to somehow craft a non majority out of thin air, as you described. But not circular logic on my part. My argument is that the counting act specifies the date and a process for contesting electoral votes.
The interpretation of that contesting process likely is at the hands of the majority. Because the senate and house follow parliamentary procedure, if it looks like too many contested electorals are happening, someone can make a motion to cut off those objections, it is seconded, put to a vote, and if it passes, the joint session moves on with its business. Pissing matches happen all the time in congress. The vocal minority tries to have its way. They get the floor for a time, and then eventually the deadlock/filibuster is broken and they move on.
This is why McConnell warned these fools not to pull any “stunts” on January 6th. He specifically called them stunts because that’s what they are. I’m sure he has a parliamentary trick or two up his sleeve to stomp on these turkeys of they try to pull a fast one. Pelosi is no parliamentary slouch, either.
Ok, but the article I’ve been discussing doesn’t make mention of any of the deadlines in the ECA. It only argues how the ECA can be used to stall, and then makes claims about the what happens if Inauguration Day passes * under the 12th amendment.*. The argument you’re making is not the argument the columnist was making, which is what all my comments have been referring to. Using deadlines in the ECA to stop vote counting is a substantively different legal argument than using the ECA to prolong vote counting until a deadline in the 12th amendment is triggered
The ECA sets January 6th as the day that votes are counted. Not Jan 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th until the job is done. Only the 6th, that’s the day. It’s done on that day.
The two hour blocks for debate over contested votes is what this endless filibuster of the count is based on. Who is to say the same objection could not be raised repeatedly by 1 rep and 1 senator, thus delaying the count inevitably? Likely, a parliamentary body would let 1 of these come up, then collect all the rest, and then adjourn for two hours only TOTAL.
Who knows, though. It is just so far fetched that endless objections could delay the count of votes already cast. A well-oiled parliamentary body like ours just does not put up with endless, frivolous delay. They do a lot of shenanigans and maneuvers, but not that kind.
Ok, this is not the argument being made by the columnist, and it directly contradicts the 20th amendment. Your interpretation of January 6th being designated as the day congress meets to count votes as meaning that vote counting has to stop counting at midnight is not a remotely plausible reading of the text.
The relevant section begins: “Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors.”
It does not say Congress shall be in session only on the sixth, nor does it dictate any time limits. To argue that it means exclusively the sixth would be contrary to all common legal construction, and would also cause the entire section to become legally inconsistent. This is the same section that puts forward the ability to challenge electors. Even with the most restrictive definition of this challenge, it would only take a handful of challenges to push it past midnight. So either this section uses a unique construction to set a time limit that is immediately undermined by the the following clauses, or the plain meaning is, in fact, the meaning. If the law provides a method for resolving disputes during the vote counting process, no court in American history would accept a novel and restrictive reading of a clause when that would penalize people for following the processes laid out in the law
Yes, it is an accurate reading. It’s a joint session of congress as described in the Electoral Count Act. Joint sessions are a rarity. They are entirely prescribed and contained in duration. Could it go late into the evening, past midnight into the 7th? Maybe. Carry over into the 8th? Remotely, possibly. But it wasn’t intended to. It is a reading of the votes. An enumeration, not a debate. It was intended to occur wholly on the 6th unless the date gets changed by passage of a law.
Objections must also be accepted as having standing, by the presiding officer. It is extremely far fetched that any form of extended objection after objection could delay this enumeration. And extremely unlikely that it could be prolonged past the 6th of January.
I’m confused. I point out that it’s inaccurate to claim the law requires people to stop counting at midnight. Your response is that it is an accurate reading. You then immediately claim that it can go past midnight or until the eighth. Even if the people who wrote the law hoped or expected it to always be done by the end of the sixth, that’s not what the law requires. Because it explicitly (and intentionally) provides for the circumstances that would cause it to go past midnight
Depending on the reading of how the challenges work, a vote could be forced on whether to accept any and every a) state or b) elector. Whatever the intent of the law may have been, it explicitly allows for, at the very least, two hours debate plus a vote for every state. There is, once again, no statutory end date for the special joint session of Congress, just a statutory start date. The link you shared is a guide for how things go, if everything goes smoothly. What the actual law says, is that Congress has to be in session on the sixth, and then provides the process by which the electoral votes are processed and objected to. There is no means by which taking too long would stop the counting under the ECA. If someone wanted to spend 100 hours objecting to and debating and voting on every state’s slate of electors, well, the ECA guarantees that all challenges will be heard and voted on. Under the 20th Amendment, if this process continues past inauguration, since there’s no president (or Vice-President) selected, the acting president would be determined by Succession Act of 1947 until a president is selected.
I think this is where we have some miscommunication. From the ECA: “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senateshall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision”
This is the required procedure. The only ambiguity is whether it applies to statewide slates of electors or individual votes. There is no parliamentary method to skip these objections because they are statutorily required.
Under the ECA, can Safe Harbor states’ counts (all but Wisconsin) even be questioned by Congress?
the Supreme Court has stated that the section "creates a ‘safe harbor’ insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned. If the state legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to Election Day, that determination shall be conclusive if made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors.
Underlying all of this, this is the ritual by which the sovereign states pledge and bind their sovereignty to the Union. This isn’t a mere states’ rights issue, this is the thing and the whole of the thing. If a state has played by the rules, it is outside Congress’ power to question that state’s sovereign will.
Right. The worst he could do without Pence abetting him is cause a total of 100 hours of delay. Even if this pushed it past inauguration, the 20th amendment would make Biden president as soon as the vote counting is done, with Pelosi being acting president between noon January 20th and whenever the counting is done.
EDIT: actually, 76 hours. The states’ electors are counted based on the alphabetical order of the states, and Biden would hit 270 when Pennsylvania is counted.
I mean, Congress can’t refuse to acknowledge the electors based on any controversy arising from state law. But the ECA provides an unqualified process for objecting to electors. Pence could insist otherwise, and by the time Cruz got the Supreme Court to weigh in on it would be a moot point, even though it would be a misapplication of the law
At least not in order to be made. Whether they have substance is what the houses are supposed to vote on.
The person making the objection does have to briefly state their grounds which presumably should be based on the criteria whether the vote was regularly cast by an elector lawfully certified by the relevant state.
But there’s nothing to say the ground for objecting can’t be utter tripe. The voting system is supposed to deal with that.
Both houses have to vote to reject the vote, otherwise it stands.
The relevance here is the speculation that one could use spurious objections to talk out the clock.
It also provides that the joint session is suspended while each house goes off to debate and vote on the objections. As in the session doesn’t end until the houses have voted and reconvene.
So, I think your interpretation is right. Until the houses finish voting on any objections, the process of counting votes is still ongoing and any provisions about what happens if the houses can’t agree don’t come into play.
I think it’s pretty clear that it is to individual votes.
The language used is in respect of regularly cast votes by electors duly certified. It’s clearly possible that one elector might not be properly appointed or have cast their vote incorrectly whereas the rest from that state might be fine.
Im kidding about it really. I think you’re basically right and the headlines law is usually right. In this case this scenerio seems far fetched and i sincerely doubt it will happen. Cruz might grandstand a bit but no way this is gonna be delayed at this point. Mitch congratulated Biden after the electoral votes officially came in. Its over. Its true that the republicans are insane and who knows for sure but I’d place a serious bet against this particular scenario.
