When you listen to the tape, what's most striking is that he really sounds like he believes that he's been robbed of the election. Like he really believes there were hundreds of thousands of ballots stolen or reversed — and is pleading with the SOS to reverse a crime.
If that's true, this doesn't evince a crime. It evinces that the man has no connection to reality.
I am sorry if my essay created fear. But against the background of endless articles describing what they are not actually trying, it seems fair and right to describe what they are actually trying — §2.
IF (all caps intended) they can get legislatures to act (which having alternative slates vote buys them time to try), their whole fight will be §2 vs §15.
And the idea you would represent a complicated legal argument like this is completely irresponsible.
2/ There is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY for the proposition that AFTER a legislature has vested the choice of electors in the people, the legislature can recall that power and vest it differently.
It has literally NEVER happened.
3/ And the clear import of the recent (unanimous) "faithless elector" case is that they couldn't.
We know the framers were certainly not intending to give LEGISLATURES the power to pick the President. They expressly considered that and they expressly rejected it.
The backsliding has begun. Four weeks ago, 4 states representing 4.9% of the population had R(t) numbers greater than 1. Today, it is 5 states representing 12.4%.
I have already once made the point that by "Republic" the framers meant a "representative democracy" — so, e.g., if a "Ford truck" is a "truck," then a "representative democracy" (aka, "Republic") is a "democracy." See bit.ly/ARepublic
Not a "direct democracy," no doubt. And no doubt, the framers were not fans of direct democracy. But a "direct democracy" is just one form of "democracy," just as a "representative democracy" is too.