Why It Will Be Harder for Trump to Challenge This Year’s Election

[sun rise]

I had forgotten or missed that law but I feel better having read this piece. Because of course we know what Trump will do when he loses. This is from the Wall Street Journal of all places. My library card gets me temporary access to the WSJ and quite a few other outlets.

Why It Will Be Harder for Trump to Challenge This Year’s Election

In addition, under the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act that Congress passed in response to the 2020 election shenanigans, if a state doesn’t certify its count, Congress must remove that state’s Electoral College votes from the tally of what counts as a majority. So a delay should not trigger a special election in the House to choose the next president.​

​

In that same 2022 law, Congress tightened rules for how states submit Electoral College votes and how Congress counts them. As part of their effort to undermine the 2020 election, Trump and his allies encouraged fake electors across seven states to sign false certificates claiming that he had won in their states. Fake electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada have since been charged with crimes. The new legislation rules out these kinds of schemes.​

​

The law also prevents the vice president—in this case Kamala Harris—who presides over the Electoral College count in Congress, from simply throwing out votes she doesn’t like, as Trump urged Vice President Mike Pence to do in 2021.​

...​

A fake electors gambit would hit another roadblock if tried in 2024. The Supreme Court in the 2023 case of Moore v. Harper rejected an extreme version of the “independent state legislature” theory that Trump supporters had used in 2020 to argue that state legislatures had the power to do whatever they pleased when it came to federal elections, regardless of state constitutions and state courts.​

 

[Copernicus]

In addition, under the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act that Congress passed in response to the 2020 election shenanigans, if a state doesn’t certify its count, Congress must remove that state’s Electoral College votes from the tally of what counts as a majority. So a delay should not trigger a special election in the House to choose the next president.

I don't subscribe to WSJ, so I can't see the original article. However, this description of what is in the law troubles me greatly. If any state's electoral count can be nullified by this mechanism, then the strategy would be to target solid red or blue states, depending on which side is trying to game the outcome. The idea would be to simply throw a monkey wrench into the certification process, blocking that state's electoral count from contributing to the outcome. Am I misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? If so, it would open up a huge vulnerability to gaming the system, as a concerted effort to undermine certification efforts in blue states could pay off big for Donald Trump. Is the removal supposed to be final, or does Congress have to wait until the state works out how to repair the damage to its certification process? If the process is not clear, and the election is thrown into limbo, the choice depends on the House, where Donald Trump is likely to be declared the winner no matter what the popular vote is.

 

[wellwisher]

A fake electors gambit would hit another roadblock if tried in 2024. The Supreme Court in the 2023 case of Moore v. Harper rejected an extreme version of the “independent state legislature” theory that Trump supporters had used in 2020 to argue that state legislatures had the power to do whatever they pleased when it came to federal elections, regardless of state constitutions and state courts.

This time the DNC will not be able to use Government to strong arm social media, to censor truth that can hurt them like the hunter Biden Laptop story that broke before the election. That election interference should have voided the election. The problem was the illegal censorship changed into an illegal coverup, until the point of no return, making an illegal result stick before it could tried in court. What should happen is Trump gets to have the same control over social media this election cycle to balance this cheat, out. Not having to listen and read DNC disinformation on any social media would make it a more relaxing election cycle. Trump would win in a landslide. All polls had Trump wining in 2020 if the Government driven election interference had not occurred. The laptop story was big news, but the fix was in.

RNC states have been going through their state voter rolls and are purging people who should not be on the rolls, like the deceased, people who moved, illegal immigrants, etc. Not all Democrats states are wanting to get rid of the cheat list. The State of Texas found 400,000 cases that they purged. Many out of state people, who moved, can vote twice.

How about after the election, before each state certifies the result, they have to open their voter roles and if there are illegal voters, these are deducted from their total votes of the party in charge of that States elections. As an example, say Texas did not get rid of the 400,000 illegal voters, since that state is run by the Republicans, they RNC loses 400,000 Texas votes. Then they certify based on the non cheat result. Texas is prepared to have an honest election. Would the DNC agree to this or this cheat still needed?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I don't subscribe to WSJ, so I can't see the original article. However, this description of what is in the law troubles me greatly. If any state's electoral count can be nullified by this mechanism, then the strategy would be to target solid red or blue states, depending on which side is trying to game the outcome. The idea would be to simply throw a monkey wrench into the certification process, blocking that state's electoral count from contributing to the outcome. Am I misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? If so, it would open up a huge vulnerability to gaming the system, as a concerted effort to undermine certification efforts in blue states could pay off big for Donald Trump. Is the removal supposed to be final, or does Congress have to wait until the state works out how to repair the damage to its certification process? If the process is not clear, and the election is thrown into limbo, the choice depends on the House, where Donald Trump is likely to be declared the winner no matter what the popular vote is.

In addition, under the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act that Congress passed in response to the 2020 election shenanigans, if a state doesn’t certify its count, Congress must remove that state’s Electoral College votes from the tally of what counts as a majority. So a delay should not trigger a special election in the House to choose the next president.

 

[Argentbear]

All polls had Trump wining in 2020 if the Government driven election interference had not occurred.

Total bull. Every major poling organization predicted a significant Biden win in 2020

RNC states have been going through their state voter rolls and are purging people who should not be on the rolls, like the deceased, people who moved, illegal immigrants, etc.

And minorities

 

[F1fan]

I don't subscribe to WSJ, so I can't see the original article. However, this description of what is in the law troubles me greatly. If any state's electoral count can be nullified by this mechanism, then the strategy would be to target solid red or blue states, depending on which side is trying to game the outcome. The idea would be to simply throw a monkey wrench into the certification process, blocking that state's electoral count from contributing to the outcome. Am I misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? If so, it would open up a huge vulnerability to gaming the system, as a concerted effort to undermine certification efforts in blue states could pay off big for Donald Trump. Is the removal supposed to be final, or does Congress have to wait until the state works out how to repair the damage to its certification process? If the process is not clear, and the election is thrown into limbo, the choice depends on the House, where Donald Trump is likely to be declared the winner no matter what the popular vote is.

If a state doesn't certify their election results it affects all the other candidates on the ballot. So there will be other interested candidates who want the results certified. In 2022 Cochise county officials refused to certify election results and they violated state laws. So these delay efforts are stunts that have no way to work. It seems to me that these stunts are just efforts to make MAGAs feel like there's fraud.

Cochise County officials who refused to certify the 2022 election are being investigated by the AG

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is investigating two Cochise County supervisors who refused to certify the county’s midterm election results by the state-required deadline

azmirror.com

What is happening in Georgia is a huge sory, with the three (of five) election officials trying to set up a scenario that will deny results if Harris wins the state. Even Brian kept is showing signs of being against these efforts. The state and national democrats have sued the new rules this committee has created.

 

[metis]

This time the DNC will not be able to use Government to strong arm social media, to censor truth that can hurt them like the hunter Biden Laptop story that broke before the election. That election interference should have voided the election. The problem was the illegal censorship changed into an illegal coverup, until the point of no return, making an illegal result stick before it could tried in court. What should happen is Trump gets to have the same control over social media this election cycle to balance this cheat, out. Not having to listen and read DNC disinformation on any social media would make it a more relaxing election cycle. Trump would win in a landslide. All polls had Trump wining in 2020 if the Government driven election interference had not occurred. The laptop story was big news, but the fix was in.

RNC states have been going through their state voter rolls and are purging people who should not be on the rolls, like the deceased, people who moved, illegal immigrants, etc. Not all Democrats states are wanting to get rid of the cheat list. The State of Texas found 400,000 cases that they purged. Many out of state people, who moved, can vote twice.

How about after the election, before each state certifies the result, they have to open their voter roles and if there are illegal voters, these are deducted from their total votes of the party in charge of that States elections. As an example, say Texas did not get rid of the 400,000 illegal voters, since that state is run by the Republicans, they RNC loses 400,000 Texas votes. Then they certify based on the non cheat result. Texas is prepared to have an honest election. Would the DNC agree to this or this cheat still needed?

Do you invent this dung or do you just parrot what you hear in the right-wing media?

 

[Kathryn]

And minorities

Source please. Thanks.

 

[sun rise]

I don't subscribe to WSJ, so I can't see the original article. However, this description of what is in the law troubles me greatly. If any state's electoral count can be nullified by this mechanism, then the strategy would be to target solid red or blue states, depending on which side is trying to game the outcome. The idea would be to simply throw a monkey wrench into the certification process, blocking that state's electoral count from contributing to the outcome. Am I misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? If so, it would open up a huge vulnerability to gaming the system, as a concerted effort to undermine certification efforts in blue states could pay off big for Donald Trump. Is the removal supposed to be final, or does Congress have to wait until the state works out how to repair the damage to its certification process? If the process is not clear, and the election is thrown into limbo, the choice depends on the House, where Donald Trump is likely to be declared the winner no matter what the popular vote is.

It's discussed in the link https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislat...e-electoral-count-reform-act-means-for-states My reading of that indicates that the states can't play that game.

 

[sun rise]

I went to the actual law https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JRQ121922.PDF, found section P It reads that if games are being played by the states in not approving an slate of electors, the count is reduced by the number not appointed. So if a state refuses to submit a slate, they get no votes.

State is entitled under section 3, or if an objection​

23 the grounds for which are described in subsection​

24 (d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) has been sustained, the total number​

25 of electors appointed for the purpose of determining​

December 19, 2022 (11:48 p.m.)​

1951​

U:\2023OMNI\FinalFY23\JRQ121922.xml SEN. APPRO.​

1 a majority of the whole number of electors appointed​

2 as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Con3​

stitution shall be reduced by the number of electors​

4 whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom​

5 the objection was sustained.​

6 ‘‘(​

 

[Copernicus]

I went to the actual law https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JRQ121922.PDF, found section P It reads that if games are being played by the states in not approving an slate of electors, the count is reduced by the number not appointed. So if a state refuses to submit a slate, they get no votes.

State is entitled under section 3, or if an objection​

23 the grounds for which are described in subsection​

24 (d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) has been sustained, the total number​

25 of electors appointed for the purpose of determining​

December 19, 2022 (11:48 p.m.)​

1951​

U:\2023OMNI\FinalFY23\JRQ121922.xml SEN. APPRO.​

1 a majority of the whole number of electors appointed​

2 as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Con3​

stitution shall be reduced by the number of electors​

4 whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom​

5 the objection was sustained.​

6 ‘‘(​

I am still deeply troubled by this law, which appears to give Republicans in control of election machinery in a state like Georgia the ability to block specific electors for the Harris-Walz ticket while certifying all of those for Donald Trump. If all of their votes are removed from the majority, then Trump would lose the Georgia electors, too. However, if Harris would have been certified to win the state, this law would knock out a blue state in the final majority count, which could throw the general election to Donald Trump in theory. The Republicans could theoretically target blue states with this strategy as a way of taking out those states from counting in the electoral majority. If a swing state should happen to legitimately give Trump their votes, they could proceed with the normal certification process. Am I wrong? I hope so.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I am still deeply troubled by this law, which appears to give Republicans in control of election machinery in a state like Georgia the ability to block specific electors for the Harris-Walz ticket while certifying all of those for Donald Trump. If all of their votes are removed from the majority, then Trump would lose the Georgia electors, too. However, if Harris would have been certified to win the state, this law would knock out a blue state in the final majority count, which could throw the general election to Donald Trump in theory. The Republicans could theoretically target blue states with this strategy as a way of taking out those states from counting in the electoral majority. If a swing state should happen to legitimately give Trump their votes, they could proceed with the normal certification process. Am I wrong? I hope so.

The way I understand this, if a state refuses to certify, the number of electoral votes required to become president would be reduced in proportion to the number of electors from that state. Currently their are 538 electors who cast their states votes. It takes 270 (simple majority of 538) to win electorally.

IOW, if a state refuses to certify, their electoral votes are removed from the 538 number and it would take the majority of the remaining electoral votes to win.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

RNC states have been going through their state voter rolls and are purging people who should not be on the rolls, like the deceased, people who moved, illegal immigrants, etc. Not all Democrats states are wanting to get rid of the cheat list. The State of Texas found 400,000 cases that they purged. Many out of state people, who moved, can vote twice.

You forgot the veterans who got purged for being stationed elsewhere.

 

[Copernicus]

The way I understand this, if a state refuses to certify, the number of electoral votes required to become president would be reduced in proportion to the number of electors from that state. Currently their are 538 electors who cast their states votes. It takes 270 (simple majority of 538) to win electorally.

IOW, if a state refuses to certify, their electoral votes are removed from the 538 number and it would take the majority of the remaining electoral votes to win.

OK, so Georgia has 16 electoral votes, but refuses to certify any electoral votes because the Republicans in charge do not want those 16 votes to go to Harris-Walz. That leaves 522 votes, meaning that 262 votes would be needed by Donald Trump to win the election. But Harris had only 260 without Georgia. Trump wins. If both candidates come up with 260 electoral votes, a tie, the election goes to the House with its majority comprised of Republican-controlled delegations (one vote per state now), and Trump wins. So Georgia's refusal to submit electoral votes makes Trump the winner under those two scenarios, even though Harris would have won a full electoral count, if Georgia had certified its electoral count. Am I wrong? How does this law fix potential electoral cheating by Republicans or Democrats?

I think it unlikely that shenanigans of this sort will actually end up preventing Kamala Harris's victory, unless the polls narrow significantly towards the end of the election. They always seem to do that, but not necessarily by a lot, and it really comes down to a handful of states determining which candidate wins. The swing states are the ones in which many county election officials have been replaced by MAGA extremists who have vowed not to certify election results and thereby break the state's electoral certification.

See:

What Happens When Election Officials Refuse to Certify Results?​

The article mentions that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that rogue county officials cannot break the system. However, thanks to the Trump-directed MAGA campaign to undermine electoral counts in most of the swing states, we have yet to see what happens when there is a concerted effort in all those states to break the system in this way. Hopefully, the workarounds will actually work around the problem.

 

[Wandering Monk]

OK, so Georgia has 16 electoral votes, but refuses to certify any electoral votes because the Republicans in charge do not want those 16 votes to go to Harris-Walz. That leaves 522 votes, meaning that 262 votes would be needed by Donald Trump to win the election. But Harris had only 260 without Georgia. Trump wins. If both candidates come up with 260 electoral votes, a tie, the election goes to the House with its majority comprised of Republican-controlled delegations (one vote per state now), and Trump wins. So Georgia's refusal to submit electoral votes makes Trump the winner under those two scenarios, even though Harris would have won, if Georgia had certified its electoral count. Am I wrong?

260 twice is only 520 electoral votes. What happened to the other two? 261 twice is 522, a tie. In the second case, it would go to the House. Of course for Trump to win he would need to get ALL the Republicans. Doubtful.

Currently there are four Republicans in the US House who are supposedly never-Trumpers.

David Joyce, U.S. Representative from OH-14 (2013–present)[60]
Thomas Massie, U.S. Representative from KY-04 (2012–present) (endorsed Ron DeSantis)[61]
Greg Pence, U.S. Representative from IN-06 (2019–present) (endorsed Mike Pence, his brother)[62]
David Valadao, U.S. Representative from CA-22 (2023–present), U.S. Representative from CA-21 (2013–2019, 2021–2023)[63] (will not vote for Trump in general election)

 

[Copernicus]

260 twice is only 520 electoral votes. What happened to the other two? 261 twice is 522, a tie. In the second case, it would go to the House. Of course for Trump to win he would need to get ALL the Republicans. Doubtful.

Currently there are four Republicans in the US House who are supposedly never-Trumpers.

David Joyce, U.S. Representative from OH-14 (2013–present)[60]
Thomas Massie, U.S. Representative from KY-04 (2012–present) (endorsed Ron DeSantis)[61]
Greg Pence, U.S. Representative from IN-06 (2019–present) (endorsed Mike Pence, his brother)[62]
David Valadao, U.S. Representative from CA-22 (2023–present), U.S. Representative from CA-21 (2013–2019, 2021–2023)[63] (will not vote for Trump in general election)

That does not matter, but maybe there would be a few more honest Republicans not wanting to see a Trump victory by this method. The way an electoral count works is that each state delegation gets one vote, so it is the majority of representatives in a delegation that determines the vote. Four never-Trumpers are unlikely to be enough to change any state's votes. The delegations in those four states will come out with three votes (Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana) for Donald Trump and one (California) for Harris.

Don't forget the Mike Pence strategy in 2021. Trump wanted Pence to refuse to certify the electoral count, claiming doubts as to the results. That could have thrown the election to the House, resulting in Trump being the President today instead of Biden. That was the theory and the plan. Pence refused, and that is why Trump engineered the breach of the Capitol Building with people shouting "Hang Mike Pence!" Trump wanted to stop the certification process by hook or by crook.

 

[Father Heathen]

This time the DNC will not be able to use Government to strong arm social media, to censor truth that can hurt them like the hunter Biden Laptop story that broke before the election.

Nonsense. The "hunter's laptop story" was a nothing burger. It wasn't censored. It just wasn't newsworthy.

That election interference should have voided the election. The problem was the illegal censorship changed into an illegal coverup, until the point of no return, making an illegal result stick before it could tried in court. What should happen is Trump gets to have the same control over social media this election cycle to balance this cheat, out. Not having to listen and read DNC disinformation on any social media would make it a more relaxing election cycle. Trump would win in a landslide. All polls had Trump wining in 2020 if the Government driven election interference had not occurred. The laptop story was big news, but the fix was in.

What a goofy and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and when it comes to disinformation, it's always rightwingers who concoct and disseminate it.
And why on earth would Trump win in a landslide? Most Americans prefer leaders who aren't corrupt and incompetent. They also look down upon treason, fraud, adultery, rape, etc. They also realize that disastrous dumpster fires are a bad thing. The American people booted Trump's worthless *** out of office last election, fairly and legitimately. The dopey "stolen election" conspiracy theory grew from butthurt and sour grapes. The backward, backwater bumpkin enclaves never represented America, and they never will.

 

[sun rise]

I am still deeply troubled by this law, which appears to give Republicans in control of election machinery in a state like Georgia the ability to block specific electors for the Harris-Walz ticket while certifying all of those for Donald Trump. If all of their votes are removed from the majority, then Trump would lose the Georgia electors, too. However, if Harris would have been certified to win the state, this law would knock out a blue state in the final majority count, which could throw the general election to Donald Trump in theory. The Republicans could theoretically target blue states with this strategy as a way of taking out those states from counting in the electoral majority. If a swing state should happen to legitimately give Trump their votes, they could proceed with the normal certification process. Am I wrong? I hope so.

This law does not stop every electoral trick but it closes some doors which were tried in 2020. State gerrymandering and other games still needs to be addressed.

 

[sun rise]

Don't forget the Mike Pence strategy in 2021. Trump wanted Pence to refuse to certify the electoral count,

That one is blocked by the law for the future. This year of course with have Harris as VP so it's totally not an issue.

 

[Copernicus]

That one is blocked by the law for the future. This year of course with have Harris as VP so it's totally not an issue.

Perhaps I should have clarified what I was trying to say. What I called the "Mike Pence Strategy" was the attempt to get the election determined by the House of Representatives, where a Republican victory seems almost assured by the number of state delegations that heavily favor Republicans. Just having the VP cast doubt on election results was not the only strategy. Trump thought there was a chance that stopping the official electoral certification in the Senate might do the trick. This time around, it looks like the strategy has switched to gumming up electoral certification at state levels. As Trump pointed out to others he was trying to influence, you just need some leverage to disrupt the official electoral results.

Here is sworn testimony from the acting Attorney General under Donald Trump on January 6, 2021:

Who is Jeffrey Rosen and why is he testifying in the Jan. 6 hearings?​

Rosen has testified in closed-door meetings with the committee and also cooperated with the Senate Judiciary investigation. He testified June 23 with his former deputy, Richard Donoghue, and Steven Engel, a former assistant attorney general.​

​

After Trump lost the election, he pressured Department of Justice officials, including Rosen, to help him overturn the results. That included telling them, “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen,” according to a Senate Judiciary report.​

​

Another Department of Justice lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, concocted a plan for the department to send letters to states Trump lost, instructing them to appoint an alternate slate of electors who would vote for Trump. Clark outlined the plan to Trump, who threatened to replace Rosen with Clark unless Rosen signed his name to the letters and sent them, according to the report.​

​

At the June 23 hearing, Rosen explained in great detail how the president repeatedly contacted him and other department officials with false claims of voter fraud, and how he regularly debunked those claims and explained their inauthenticity.​

​

Between Rosen’s appointment as acting attorney general on Dec. 23, 2020, and Jan. 5, 2021, Trump contacted him “virtually every day” expressing his “dissatisfaction” that the Justice Department hadn’t done enough to investigate voter fraud, Rosen testified.​