Should Republican state legislatures appoint Trump electors regardless?

There's no need for people to serve as electors. Unfortunately, it's in the constitution, which is why we still have them.

 

Every election had irregularities. The only difference is Trump trying to make hay out of them in order to undermine confidence in the election 'cause he's trying to get state legislators to set aside the popular vote and install his electors.

 

17,537,638 more votes were cast for democrats than republicans in the senate in 2018 yet the senate gets republican control.

Repubs have gerrymandered every district they control such that in order for a dem to take a red district, they need 10% more votes just to tie with them.

in 2016, using Republican Kris Kobach's 'Interstate Crosscheck" program, partnering with 29 red states, they purged 1.1 million voters, mostly black, from the voter registration rolls. The program was so egregious, a federal judge blocked it from being used in future elections.

In the south, republicans closed over 1200 polling venues causing long lines lasting for hours in poor neighborhoods.

In Georgia, as GA secretary of state ( in control of elections ) while simultaneously running for Governor, Brian Kemp purged almost 200,000 mostly blacks from the voter registration rolls because he said 'they moved' turns out that only a few thousand moved. GA is being sued to restore those voters.

Don't lecture me on 'fair elections'.

 

Nothing even close to this election in the past due to democrats 300 lawsuits before the election to change how they are done.

 

Those lawsuits were in response to Republicans attacking voting by various means.

 

You mean extending deadlines illegally is because...republicans? LOL

 

Writing fiction is one way of admitting you were wrong.

 

Amazing how little you know about what went on.

 

Ironic.

"In North Carolina, a settlement announced by the State Board of Elections said ballots postmarked by Election Day would count as long as officials receive them within nine days after the election.

And in Wisconsin, a federal judge similarly ruled Monday that ballots postmarked by Election Day would count as long as officials have them in hand within six days after Nov. 3.

Last week, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court said ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day will be counted so long as they're received within the next three days.

And a Michigan state judge last week also ruled that absentee ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 can be counted if they arrive up to two weeks after Election Day"
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/9160...more-votes-will-count-results-may-take-longer

Like I said, fiction.

 

The courts do not make law. Civics education is sorely lacking in this country.

 

That is open to debate, but beyond the resources of this forum. However, courts do rule on law, and they ruled that the deadline changes were permissible. Unless that gets overturned by the SC, it is now settled law.

Amazingly, that is true. Busted clocks.

 

Its only open for debate if you know nothing about the constitution. The federal constitution gives plenary power to the states legislature to create election law, not mayors, governors, or the courts.

 

Mail in votes and the absence of voter I.D. did all that.

 

If anyone wants to dive deeper on the relationship between courts and law, start with the first Supreme Court.

I get the feeling you want to overturn the Voting Rights Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965#Constitutionality

 

And then those same state legislatures in turn created law that really binds them to the will of the people.

 

I suppose you have comparisons of past irregularities, the precise number, compared to the hysterics of Trump on this election?

--noting that this election has had far more participation, so the numbers will be higher, on that point.

But, the salient point is that all elections have tons of irregularities, but only in this one is the president trying to undermine public confidence in American democracy for the subterfuge of attempting to persuade state legislatures tossing aside the popular vote and install Trump electors.

 

That wasn't the case in 2016.

 

No, state legislatures should not appoint electors either way if the election was conducted outside the state's voting laws (as in Pennsylvania).

 

An easy one is the past percentage of rejected signature matches. This election they were incredibly low compared to the past and not surprising since many of the canvassers were instructed to ignore signatures.

 

The stealing of the presidency thru fraud and criminal manipulation of votes is what is going to be the end of our republic.

The Democrats are going to finish tearing our republic down. They hate the Constitution, and are so arrogant and viscous that once they have power after Trump, they will rig any and every election moving forward.

My guess us that elections under this Constitution in 2024 are 50/50; in 2028?? 0% chance.

Many corrupt Republicans like Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey in PA, and Kemp in GA, etc will go along for the ride.

Any way you slice it - America, as a free nation - is no more.

 

All the judges have rejected Team Trump's 'evidence'. I'm in no position to assert you are right or wrong, but I do know that Team Trump has lost all of his 50 or so lawsuits so i'm inclined to not believe. Care to cite your (reliable) source? .

 

Such hysterics, I swear to god. You lost, get over it.

Yeah, when dems win, it's corrupt, but NO, not if repubs win.

Quite a number of the judges tossing out Trump's cases were republican.

Give me break.

 

Uh, in a word, no...Chiafolo & Baca, etc, were just icing on the cake that was baked going back a few centuries, to wit:

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/8851...s-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional

Kagan's opinion noted that the original Electoral College system created by the framers of the Constitution failed to anticipate the growth of political parties. By 1796, the first contested election after George Washington's retirement, the system exploded in disarray, with two consecutive Electoral College "fiascos."

That led to passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, "facilitating the Electoral College ... as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party line voting," Kagan wrote.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents the states from "taking away presidential electors' voting discretion," she said. For centuries, almost all electors have considered themselves bound to vote for the winner of the state popular vote. If the framers of the Constitution had a different idea, she said, they never committed it to the printed page.

[...]

"The Constitution's text and the nation's history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee — and the state voters' choice — for President," Kagan wrote.

 

Not illegal. Besides, why do you care if the deadline is extended? Oh, that's right, republicans hate democracy.

 

Sorry, not the lower courts, but states supreme courts, well, historically speaking, 'state legislature' insofar as SCOTUS constitutional interpretation, consists of the whole shebang, the state legislature, the state supreme court, the gov, as the high court has previously held that the word “legislature” in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean the literal legislature, but rather the state’s lawmaking process as a whole, as ruled by SCOTUS in Smiley v. Holm and Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant.

So much for 'civics'.