If Republican trickery with their refusal to certify the election, so the republican house determines the election,

[JohnSJ]

it will be time to consider non-trump states to consider Seceding, because the country is no longer a democracy.

Hopefully, that won’t happen, but if January 6th taught us anything, it is that we can’t count anything out.

We almost lost the country on January 6th, and nothing is in place to prevent that happening again I think.

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. When we know Harris wins and Republicans install Trump.....

This will be when the war starts...and every federal Republican is on the front line.

[JohnSJ]

2. I sure don't have confidence in the SC protecting our Democracy

[TheKentuckian]

3. Just no because if you break the deal you face the wheel

and the wheel is in no mood for bullshit.

[JohnSJ]

4. We came very close to losing our democracy on January 6th, and the republicans in the house are even worse now than they

we’re in 2020

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

5. It'll be the NEXT House of Repesentatives that is sworn in the beginning of January 2025 so we have to make sure

the Democrats are in control of the House

Also, the Senate, & the Presidency!

[Think. Again.]

7. You missed the point...

...the threat we face is that our election results won't be implemented, so none of our reps might be in place to do what has to be done.

[JohnSJ]

8. January 3rd is when the newly elected House and Senate are supposed to be in place. What happens if they aren't?

[Think. Again.]

11. I suspect the lawsuits and other chaos will be started right after the elections on November 5...

...I'm not sure we should depend on any new Congress or Senate being seated on schedule.

[CrispyQ]

32. I think any lawsuits started by Trump or his campaign will be for Trump only, not any down ballot candidates.

Those folks are on their own. Not saying there aren't PACs that won't stir up trouble, but I don't recall Trump ever claiming anyone else's race was rigged, or that there should be delays or recounts for any other race than his own. Kari Lake maybe, but I don't think so.

[Think. Again.]

34. I don't think trump would miss the opportunity...

...to screw up the election process just because it's down ballot races he might have to challenge.

Besides, he's not the only rightwinger with lawyers.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Have you read the CREW report?

While there may be chaos and confusion following Election Day, in the end there won’t be a slew of states not certifying results. I’d be surprised if there are any at all.

Read this before continuing your idle speculation (and without this relevant information, it is idle speculation):

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ElectionCertificationUnderThreat-2.pdf

[Think. Again.]

20. Wonderful stuff!, very comforting...

...it's also good to know that volunteer groups such as the American Bar Association Election Task Force are already preparing for any legal actions from the rightwingers that they can try to foresee.

But anyway, we everyday civilians also really do need to be prepared for the unexpected, because if there's anything at all we've learned about trump and his people, they will be preparing something horrific and unexpected to throw at us. We can see the evidence of some of the groundwork they've already laid, and to just lay back and suffer through whatever it will be, without preparing to fight back, doesn't seem wise.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. How should civilians prepare to fight back against something that won't happen?

We have Mark Elias and swing state Dem officials who are already fighting against refusal to certify.

In the highly unlikely (unconstitutional) event that multiple states fail to send slates of electors to congress, that still won’t trigger a contingent election in the house, so why should civilians prepare for something that won’t happen?

I agree we should expect the unexpected, but that doesn’t mean we should expect something that isn’t possible. There have already been attempts at refusing to certify elections that have failed miserably, sometimes with the indictment of the officials involved.

Trump is good at making noise and causing chaos, but not at winning.

[Think. Again.]

22. I guess you and I will just have to wait and see...

...if, as you say, it "won't happen".

I have less faith that trump won't try to be absolutely awful over the next few months, but I honestly hope it's you that's right, and that despite the fact that last time actually led an armed insurrection and coup attempt against our Capital, this time he will just not try anything.

I sincerely hope you're right.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. I agree Trump will be "absolutely awful" and will try just about anything

But he will fail miserably.

Any attempt at another January 6 will be met with a hail of bullets and tear gas from the thousands of NG troops that will guard the Capitol.

Short of that, he will make a lot of threats, which some of his followers will attempt to carry out, and they will fail, as they have failed before.

The CREW report showed me clearly what tools are in place and have already been used successfully in every swing state except for GA.

The one wild card this year is the revised Electoral Count Act, which hasn’t been tested, but is supposed to add an additional layer of protection on top of the state remedies described in the CREW report.

The biggest uncertainty in the ECA is the three judge panel that is supposed to determine the winner in a state where unresolved challenges by one or both candidates exist. Nobody- not the pundits, not the campaigns, not Marc Elias, is talking about this, but I am pretty sure it will get tested this year.

But regardless, I have no worries whatsoever that a contingent election will be forced by Trump and his MAGA minions.

[JohnSJ]

9. Yes

[Think. Again.]

6. I think we should all start thinking about...

...the last resort of a massive general strike.

If all willing Democrats suddenly stopped buying, spending, paying bills, trading in the stock market, just stopped engaging in the processes of a functioning society, even working (for those who are willing to), something would have to give and the big corporations would do whatever they had to get things back on track.

So maybe beginning now to stock up on a week or two of needed medications, food, etc. might be a good idea.

We DO have the ultimate power in our collective wallets.

[CrispyQ]

36. A massive general strike is never going to happen. Not in today's America.

Most of us still have too much to lose to risk it for a trillionth of a chance at making a difference with a strike. You think these giant corporations can't wait us out? They have most of us exactly where they want us. Dependent on them for our jobs, our healthcare, our groceries, our energy, our everything.

Our job right now is to get VP Harris huge margins in as many swing states as possible. I would love if they could call it for Harris before 10PM! That would put to rest any of Trump's ignorant blather about how millions of votes came in after midnight. Stupid piece of shit that he is.

[Think. Again.]

38. It might turn out to be our only option.

[CrispyQ]

39. Let's hope not cuz IMO things will have to be seriously grim before that happens. -nt

[Think. Again.]

40. Yes, having trump succeeding in getting back the White House...

....would be pretty seriously grim.

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

10. My question is

If the results are not certified in states like Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan, shouldn't the representatives from those states also be unseated in the House? That would include a significant number of Republicans, I believe.

[Think. Again.]

12. Causing confusion and chaos is the rightwing plan...

...so the entire election might be caught up in their efforts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. See my reply #17 below

Your imagined scenario is not going to happen.

Also read this:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ElectionCertificationUnderThreat-2.pdf

[Think. Again.]

41. Their efforts to cause chaos and confusion...

...have already begun, no imagination necessary.

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. They caused chaos and confusion in 2020, and still lost

With the same SCOTUS (minus KBJ) in place.

Since then, there have been multiple attempts in multiple states to block certification of election results, and all have failed.

[Think. Again.]

44. Yes, and Ted Bundy once failed one of his earliest murder attempts.

..it seems that previous losses don't always mean future losses.

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. Bundy had a better track record of "success" than Trump has. nt

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

47. Thanks'

You are correct, and I didn't think about the state’s electoral not being counted therefore lowering the threshold to win

[lees1975]

13. Certifying an election is a legal requirement.

It's not a decision that someone can just make and say, "Well we didn't like the result so we won't certify." It's required by law. If they don't certify, they have to prove, with evidence, fraud. If they can't do that, they get arrested and a judge certifies.

[Diraven]

14. Until the SCOTUS says it's ok

To not certify. Which they would in a heartbeat of it means Republicans win.

[lees1975]

33. SCOTUS can't. Election law is state law. Law is already written and has been enforced.

Arizona is already prosecuting officials who refused to follow the law.

And if by some chance they could get away with it, it won't matter. Dems control enough state houses for governors to certify and get enough electoral votes for Harris to win.

[onenote]

15. No one is going to seriously consider seceding. Period.

[myohmy2]

16. if trickery...

...deception and insurrection abound wouldn't Joe have the ability/duty to declare Martial Law...?

...I'm pretty sure Joe would do whatever was necessary to save our Constitution and Republic...

...

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Good lord, this is at least the third thread fretting about this false notion on the first page of latest threads

Read this simple sentence and remember it:

If a state fails to certify their election results, and thus fails to send a slate of electors to congress (which is unconstitutional in and of itself), that does NOT trigger a contingent election in the house.

If, somehow, a state failed to send electors to congress, it would reduce the total number of duly appointed electors, which in turn would reduce the total number of electors needed to achieve a majority.

Simplified version : if a state fails to send electors, the number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency drops below 270.

With the exception of GA, every swing state has black-letter-law that has been tested in court in previous elections to address refusal by elections officials to certify results.

Share this info far and wide, so we don’t have to waste any more time on this silly nonsense.

[Think. Again.]

24. I suspect one of the first challenges...

....trump's team will be sending to trump's supreme court will be a challenge to how that would play out.

It seems to me that if a state fails to certify their election, that would eliminate their Congressional votes too, so yes, I suspect the rightwing SC will be called on to do their rightwing work.

Unfortunately, I don't see it as being the completely safe path that you do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. That is a HUGE "if".

It seems to me that if a state fails to certify their election, that would eliminate their Congressional votes too, so yes, I suspect the rightwing SC will be called on to do their rightwing work.

I see failure to certify as an infinitesimal possibility, and then only in GA.

If GA fails to certify and it goes to SCOTUS, and they say the electors go to Trump, how does that change the outcome of the election? I have seen no scenario where GA is the tipping point state.

PA? They can remove/replace officials refusing to certify, then Shapiro will appoint the Harris electors.

The unknown factor, as I said in another post, is the revised Electoral Count Act, and how it’s provision for a three judge panel to resolve candidate challenges would come into play.

[Think. Again.]

27. I think that's the crux if the whole thing...

...it's quite clear that the rightwing fully intends to not certify in many different states, which each have their own rules about what happens in that scenario.

And so multiple layers of confusion and the time tables involved will make it extremely easy for the supreme court to step in with their own solution, just like in 2000, which I doubt will be a good one.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. So, as I said before:

Election officials refuse to certify in, say, PA, and are immediately replaced by workers who do certify, and Shapiro appoints the electors and sends the Certificate of Ascertainment to congress.

How does SCOTUS get involved in that process? How do they have jurisdiction, and who has standing? If Shapiro acts rapidly and appoints electors before SCOTUS can issue a stay, or if Shapiro defies a stay, then what?

I suppose candidates could file challenges Up to the moment of certification, but once certified, I don’t see a path to SCOTUS intervention.

[Think. Again.]

45. What if a rightwing Governor decides to not do that?

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. NV and GA are the only swing states with a GOP governor

and Kemp didn't rescue Trump in 2020 with illegal actions, why would you think he would now?

Do you think Joe Lombardo will disenfranchise the voters of his state? Isn't he up for reelection soon?

[Think. Again.]

53. I'll rephrase the question...

What if a rightwing Governor from any state at all decides not to do that?

(Why do you keep pretending you can limit my questions to specific states of your choosing?)

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. OK, what if?

Walk me through a hypothetical scenario - you pick the state/states where a RW governor decides to disenfranchise the voters of his state by refusing to send a slate of electors and deny his residents representation in congress.

Then what do you imagine would happen?

The only thing for certain (assuming the governor was actually successful in not sending electors to congress) would be that the total number of duly appointed electors would be reduced, which would in turn reduce the number of electors needed to obtain a majority and therefore the presidency.

Pick your state(s) and give me your evidence and reality based worst case scenario. Don’t forget to show your work regarding any math involved.

If I’ve overlooked any facts or details (as opposed to speculative opinions) feel free to point them out.

Here’s my hypothetical worst case scenario:

Georgia fails to send a slate of electors, reducing the total number of electors from 538 down to 522. This means to win the presidency a candidate need only get 261 EV’s.

But wait, there’s more! Let’s say Trump wins PA and MI, and Harris takes NV, NC and AZ.



Harris ends up with 269 EV’s and the presidency, although not without some major tantrums during the joint session on January 6.

(Ignore that NC is shown as dark blue; I was just tapping quickly to get the numbers I needed)

[Think. Again.]

57. Here's my hypothetical...

A state refuses to certify it's election.

trump or any rightwinger asks for an emergency decision from the supreme court on how to proceed.

Supreme court agrees and a certain majority of them says they determined trump wins.

[Fiendish Thingy]

58. Unserious response

If a state refused to certify and send electors, any court case would be about that state only (see Bush v Gore, and all the 2020 court cases).

SCOTUS isn’t going to take a case on Georgia’s electors, rule on who won that state, and then say, in a separate, unrelated legal question,regardless of the elector totals from the other 49 states, we declare Trump the winner.

In that case, the January 6 counting of electoral votes in the joint session of congress, a process outside of the jurisdiction of SCOTUS, would proceed as dictated in the constitution and via the Electoral Count Act, and the actual winner of the election would be declared, regardless of any highly unlikely declaration by SCOTUS.

Your response is not a rational one.

[Think. Again.]

59. Ha! you probably would have said the same thing if 4 years ago I wrote...

Here's my hypothetical...

The sitting President holds a rally on the day of the national election certifications, down the block from the Capital.

He then prompts his followers to violently attack the Capital to stop the certification, kill the V.P. if necessary, and reverse the election results

They do.

Not a very rational hypothetical, is it?

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. January 6 is far more believable than your original scenario

January 6 only required a mob of people to mount an insurrection.

Your scenario requires all of congress to acquiesce to a SCOTUS ruling that violates the separation of powers, to simply shrug and say “oh well, I guess we aren’t going to be counting the electoral votes after all” - violating their oaths, the constitution and the Electoral Count Act.

There would be no mechanism for SCOTUS to enforce such a ruling, and if they made such a ruling, when congress acted anyway and followed the constitution, you would witness the real time castration of the highest court in the land. This is why, even if they hear appeals regarding state elections and electors, the court won’t dare attempt to unilaterally appoint the president by fiat. (Remember, this same court, minus KBJ, had the opportunity to install Trump in 2020, and chose not to - wonder why?)

Congress would affirm the actual winner of the electoral college, who would be sworn in by any patriotic judge in the country on January 20, 2025.

That’s why your response is not serious, and not rational, and frankly, not completely thought out from start to finish.

[Think. Again.]

61. I guess we'll see if trump does yet another...

....not serious (as Harris referred to him), not rational, and not completely thought out thing then.

[Fiendish Thingy]

64. He already is, as his desperation grows

As we have seen regarding Springfield, and the suffering he is inflicting on that community.

And I have no doubt that he will continue his desperate acts, but I’m not convinced it will win him enough votes or court cases to become president again.

[pat_k]

26. Not happening. Courts will slap them down, biggly.

County canvas certification is a mandatory first step.

It is NOT up to election officials to resolve disputes. It is only their duty to count the ballots in accord with the rules to the best of their ability, document every step in accord with the rules, and certify that they have done this.

Then, and only then, when there is a crystal clear record of what was, or was not counted, can a would be challenger raise issues. If a challenger believes votes were counted that shouldn't have been, or that votes weren't counted that should have been, they take the challenge to court. But you can't do that until you have certification of what was or wasn't counted in the first place.

Resolving disputes and challenges is for the courts, after the counties certify their canvas.

I have absolutely no doubt that courts will slap these people down so fast they won't know what hit them. They are attempting to usurp the role of courts in elections, and courts, however conservative, don't take kindly to such things.

States set the date for counties to certify the results early enough to allow a period of time for any recounts or challenges to be resolved before the final Certification of Ascertainment declaring the truly final official results for the state. The deadline for the Certificate of Ascertainment is December 11, six days before the electors meet and cast their vote based on the results on December 17.

The timelines are pretty tight, but courts move very fast on challenges and counties know how to complete recounts within the time allotted.

Even if a challenge was running up against the December 11 and December 17 deadlines, those could actually be shifted. If a court absolutely needed more time to resolve a challenge it would be within its power to delay. While deadlines in the law are to be treated solemnly, a court can choose to balance the importance of an accurate result against the importance of meeting an arbitrary deadline. The dates are arbitrary because they were originally set to provide time for the certificate to be conveyed to the meeting and for the electoral votes from the meeting to be conveyed to Washington by December 25. In our modern world, we don't actually need that much time. It is really only the final date that is inviolate (barring an act of Congress). If accuracy demands a few more days, I don't think there is anything that would stop a court from moving the date for the Certification of Ascertainment to be issued to 12/20 and the date for the meeting of electors to 12/21. That would still leave plenty of time to get the electoral votes to Congress by 12/25.

[Think. Again.]

29. You seem to be willing to trust rightwing courts more than I do.

[pat_k]

31. Where someone is trying to usurp their power, yes.

Where they are arrogating power onto themselves where they have no place, no. They'll happily do that whenever they are allowed to get away with it.

In Bush v. Gore, as Breyer pointed out in his dissent, SCOTUS had no place in the process. The only thing the decision accomplished was to render the FL election incomplete under FL law, and therefore the electors appointed pursuant to it were not legitimate. It was up to Congress to pass judgment on that illegitimate appointment and toss them out.

My prediction that courts will slap down any attempt to move resolution of disputes from their realm to arbitrary election officials under rules that are so vague they are laughable could, of course, be flat wrong, but that is how I see it.

On edit: I am of course not saying that far right courts will not resolve disputes in the favor of the far right when those disputes come their way. Just that certification will be mandated and challenges left to the court. By the date set certificates of ascertainment will be issued and electoral votes conveyed to Congress. Whether those results are based on wrongheaded decisions to throw out legitimate votes remains to be seen.

[lees1975]

35. In 2022, Arizona's courts slapped down two county supervisors who failed to certify by the deadline.

One of the two has negotiated a plea bargain, that's how certain the slap down is. And that's a "right wing" court.

My biggest concern is that they are going to do all kinds of things to disrupt voters getting to the polls, and in places where they determine how many voter machines there are, shorting the machines and lengthening the lines. Or gun nuts show up. Or someone tries to run off with mail in drop boxes.

[Think. Again.]

37. Yep, they'll be trying all of that too.

...but don't rely too heavily on other rightwing judges feeling it's a lost cause like the Arizona court did.

[samsingh]

28. also - Biden is now immune as President and can do whatever he wants

he should throw out the votes in the red states

[snowybirdie]

30. The new Congress

gets sworn in around Jan 3rd. They will be the Congress that votes to certify the election on Jan 6th. We need to make sure the new legislators are heavily Democratic! Jeffries as Speaker won't put up with any nonsense!

[Think. Again.]

46. How could a new Congress be sworn in...

...if a state or states haven't certified their election count?

Congressional votes would be not-certified too.

[snowybirdie]

50. Congress is not the body being certified

The Presidency is. In 2021 the Congress was sworn in on January 3rd And gaveled into session at noon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/118th_United_States_Congress

[Think. Again.]

54. When a state certifies (or doesn't certify) it's votes...

...it would also effect every race on the ballot.

[snowybirdie]

56. All I know

Is the 117th Congress was the body that was eventually certified Biden's election. It was sworn in on January 3rd, 2021. Better find an election lawyer to explain further.

[OLDMDDEM]

51. By then, hopefully, the Dems will be the majority in the House.

[JohnSJ]

52. YES!!!

[Kaleva]

62. You have very little faith in Biden handling the situation.

[Chakaconcarne]

63. I have confidence in Harris' and our Democratic leaders.. Not willing to entertain this paranoia.