THREAD: It's Electoral College day! The Electoral College meets today--but not all together! The 538 members who will vote for president will meet in each state. The process is almost as arcane as its manner of representation to select the president. Some details... 1/
In 33 states (and D.C.), electors are required to vote for whoever won their state. The Supreme Court upheld these "faithless elector" laws earlier this year. In 17 states, electors can vote for whoever, though no one will change their votes this year. 2/ fairvote.org/faithless_elec…
At that meeting, the electors will cast six “Certificates of Vote” which are paired with “Certificates of Ascertainment” that were filled out after the Nov. 3 results and signed by the state's chief executive. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/9 4/
One pair of those forms are sent to the president of Senate (the Vice President). Two pairs are sent to Archivist of U.S. Two are sent to State Secretary of State. And...one is sent to the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court where electors meet. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/… 5/
Why does Chief Judge of district receive one? It's probably a relic from when votes were sent to D.C. by horse & buggy, and there needed to be a federal holder of the votes in the meantime. (That's likely also why Congress doesn't open them to declare winner until Jan. 6.) 6/
So...if you thought the Electoral College was obsolete for our modern times, just think of the 51 chief district judges who will receive the electoral college votes in their chambers. One judge once told me that she had no idea what to do with those votes when they arrived! /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨This is shocking: Trump apparently "reached out" to the two Republican Wayne County Commissioners. The next day, they signed an affidavit saying they want to rescind their votes to certify the results.
Channeling @BrendanNyhan, what you say if you saw this in another country.
Justice Alito writes for himself, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Barrett did not participate.
Alito starts off ominously: he fears "serious post-election problems" with PA Supreme Court decision. 2/
Alito makes uses some odd phrasing in his statement.
-He notes that PA Supreme Court was 4-3. So what?
-He uses “natural disaster,” in quotes as explaining the justification the PA Supreme Court gave for its ruling.
The contempt for the state supreme court just oozes out. 3/
The basic gist here is that not requiring masks at the polls disproportionately harm minority voters because they are at greater risk of COVID-19--so they are less likely to feel comfortable voting.
Texas is one of only 5 states that won't let anyone vote by mail cause of COVID concerns. So these voters face the choice of going to the polls with a higher risk or not voting. Court finds the effect of the mask mandate violates the VRA.
THREAD: Have Trump-appointed judges impacted 2020 election litigation and therefore how we run the election? Let us count the ways.
(Spoiler: they have. A lot). 1/
There have been at least 25 cases in federal courts, brought by plaintiffs seeking to ease voting rules (especially during a pandemic), that have produced appeals.
Voting rights plaintiffs are 4 for 25 overall. For you baseball fans, that means they are batting .160. 2/
In 2 of those 4 cases, state had agreed to the voting change (RI and NC). NC case is still on appeal. A 3rd was about whether to run the election at all after a candidate died (MN).
BUT in the 21 cases, district courts granted relief in 18 of them, only to see reversal. 3/
THREAD on #SCOTUS 4-4 decision refusing to intervene in Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. It's a BIG deal.
Normally, the U.S. Supreme Court won't hear cases from state courts about state law. This decision was under PA state constitution's protection for right to vote. 1/
The PA Supreme Court had extended absentee ballot deadline due to pandemic, saying the PA Constitution's "free and equal" clause required expanded voter access.
That should have ended the matter. 2/
But PA Republicans argued that the PA Supreme Court's decision altered the "manner" of running elections under Art. I, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which lets state "legislatures" determine the "times, places, and manner" of holding elections. 3/
THREAD: How many times have federal appellate courts unduly deferred to state legislatures or election officials in recent days, rejecting challenges and failing to uphold the constitutional right to vote? Let us count. 1/
3rd Circuit, rejecting challenge to Pennsylvania’s signature requirement for candidates to appear on the ballot. 2/
5th Cir., reversing a district court order that had rejected Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s directive to allow only one ballot drop off location per county. 3/