So you know: Constitutional clauses about voting. There will be arguments coming up about whether certain ballots were legal or not in various states. So you can understand one of the arguments, you should know about the 2 clauses in the Constitution that are relevant. /1
The first is Art.II, Section 1, Clause 2. It says: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:” /2
The 2nd is Art.II, Section 1, Clause 4. It says: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” /3
So, it is clear that the Constitution says 2 things: Congress controls WHEN the choosing of electors takes place, while the state legislatures controls HOW the choosing takes place. /4
Pursuant to these provisions, the Congress has passed statutes about when Election Day is (to choose Electors) & when the Electors must cast their votes, when those vote outcomes must be delivered to the federal govt, etc. /5
And the state legislatures have all passed statutes about how the voting takes place - in person, absentee, mail, etc. Arguments that challenge some state laws thus may focus on if the state’s rules on counting mail-in ballots change the time (day) that the voting takes place. /6
And therefore whether the state’s statute is unconstitutional because only Congress can say WHEN the vote is. /7
This is just one potential argument you may be hearing, but most folks don’t know that the Constitution itself actually specifically speaks to these issues. /8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@bradheath Correct. So we’ll see about that. This argument depends on the facts. Ballots cast by or on Election Day - no problem, even if received after Election Day, like military ballots. Courts will say that’s constitutional - the state isn’t changing the date of the election./1
@bradheath “Curing” ballots after Election Day is a step farther. Is that accepting ballots that weren’t cast by Election Day or not? And therefore changing the date of the Election? Conclusions on that could vary depending on exactly how it’s done, but that’s probably constitutional. /2
@bradheath What about counting ballots received after Election Day but for which it can’t be determined whether it was cast by or on Election Day? Is that changing the date? More likely the courts will say yes to that, but again it may well depend on exactly what the statute says. /3
Will you condemn it? You need to get your side of the political divide to start respecting freedom of conscience & practicing tolerance, & to stop using violence in politics./1
I have zero problem with people protesting, but vilifying law firms because of their clients & threatening to “stop” members of Congress at train stations & airports as this 👇🏻group is doing is unacceptable. Civil society will cease to function if we don’t respect civil norms. /1
Notice these messages are painted on the boarding that was put up around King & Spaulding’s office in anticipation of rights due to Trump’s re-election. /2
@MLC5eleven@CoreysDigs You’re missing the point. Federal agents usually call it Garrity rights when what they are actually talking about is the person waiving all their rights & agreeing to a voluntary interview. That is exactly what they did here. In a compelled interview the warning would . . .
@MLC5eleven@CoreysDigs have been very different. In most federal agencies they are investigating employee misconduct in a unified way - the interview can be used for all purposes: criminal, HR, clearance revocation if their cleared. Only if you waive the 5th or they have already gotten . . .
@MLC5eleven@CoreysDigs a criminal declination or they have affirmatively decided not to pursue a criminal case will you see the compelled statement warning. Although occasionally I have had a case where the wording of the warning is the language for a compelled interview but that’s not what they . . .
Hopkins case. During the interview he was advised of his Garrity rights; this is the version of Miranda rights that applies to public employees. It was done as a "voluntary" statement, meaning the govt can use it either for criminal or "administrative" (punishment) purposes. /1
At a certain point on the tape the transcription says "guaranty" rights. That's a transcription error because these folks don't know what Garrity rights are. The agent is telling him it's "Garrity rights," not "guaranty rights." /2
What's not on the tape is any description of what Hopkins was told about whether the interview was voluntary or mandatory (compelled) or what the purpose of the interview was, whether he sought them out to provide a statement or whether they asked for one. /3
Supreme Court case on PA ballots. I'm not sure why people are saying the defense didn't file responses today as ordered by the court. Maybe wrong docket #? I've pulled the filings & will put them in this thread. Link to Secretary Boockvar's Response.