Thread by @sethjlevy

Here’s my question @SenTomCotton, if the Congress’s role is simply to rubber stamp the state certified electoral college then why include in the Constitution a mechanism, specific to the election of a President, that includes the ability to object to state certified electors? 1/

Why not include, in the Constitution or the 12 Amendment or the Electoral Count Act, a simple phrase that says if certified the electors must be counted? 2/

Instead what is in the Constitution, 12A and ECA are phrases that acknowledge there could be various submissions, that the VP has a role in deciding which to count and the Congress has a role in potentially objecting to the VP’s decision. 3/

The mere fact that there is such an elaborate process undercuts the idea that the role of Congress is to be a rubber stamp. 4/

I will describe a scenario and I’d love @SenTomCotton to asses Congress’s role. Imagine a state, like Texas, where there are a lot of electors. In a deal with China the Governor and other executives in the state agree that they will ignore the legislatively prescribed process. /5

Instead of the winner of the popular vote, they will award their electors and certify based on who wins the most counties. The Governor keeps the legislature out of session, certifies and the electors vote.

Is Congress forced to accept this? /6

Effectively @SenTomCotton describes a system where a foreign power can corrupt a state, manipulate their election process, offer rewards for executives to certify false outcomes and Congress would be unable to defend against this. 7/

Now certainly in the scenario I described courts would likely intervene. I get that. But is there no level at which the intervention is real but not immediately obvious and therefore difficult for the courts to resolve? 8/

Wouldn’t Congress, with their superior access to intelligence, be the appropriate place to consider these questions? Isn’t this why they are given a role, especially in the electing of the President? 9/

Wasn’t it the founder’s concern that a foreign power would subvert the process and have undue influence on the quasi king that they would call a President? Isn’t that exactly why they described a unique process in electing a President with a Congressional role? 10/

Are we in a circumstance where China has used its influence to subvert the process? I don’t know exactly. Perhaps. But wouldn’t Congress be smart not to prejudge evidence presented on January 6? 11/

Sorry @SenTomCotton, but your logic fails both historically and as a matter of Constitutional process.

Maybe on January 6 it becomes clear the certified electors are valid and reliable. But maybe not. If not you have potentially surrendered the country to China. /12

And we should dispose of the fantasy that these issues have been fully vetted in the courts. They haven’t. And we all know it. As we speak there are cases on the docket at the Supreme Court. /13

The central question of if ballots received after Election Day in Pennsylvania should or should not be counted, an issue raised by Alito, hasn’t even been resolved. 14/

Is it valid for lower courts to say in Wisconsin that although many voters improperly used indefinitely confined that it’s too late and there’s no remedy? We don’t know. 15/

Congress may determine that these issues are not sufficient to intervene in the determination of state officials. Ultimately the federal government may rubber stamp the establishment’s rejection of the people’s choice. But not because they had no option as Tom implies. /16

And just as with the ending of the filibuster, stacking of the courts and adding new states, there is no doubt what Democrats would do in this situation. They would use every lever of power to accomplish the outcome they desired. /17

Tom is a fool if he thinks his temerity will through precedent constrain future Democrats from using clearly described avenues to achieve their ends.

So, sorry @SenTomCotton, all you have done is proven yourself a fool by prejudging instead of considering the evidence. /end