Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Matthew A. Seligman Profile picture
Matthew A. Seligman
@Matt_Seligman
Fellow at Constitutional Law Center @StanfordLaw. Partner at Stris & Maher @StrisMaher. Author of “How to Steal a Presidential Election”, out Feb. 13, 2024.
Oct 1, 2024 • 20 tweets • 5 min read
“Even more chilling, Mr. Vance’s pledge about what he would have done in Mr. Pence’s place on Jan. 6, 2021, is a promise about what Mr. Vance will do on Jan. 6, 2029, should he preside over the electoral count as vice president.”

Me in @nytopinion:

nytimes.com/2024/10/01/opi… @JDVance has repeatedly said he would have interfered with the electoral count on Jan. 6, 2021, if he had been VP.

There can be no doubt that this is part of why he, and not Mike Pence, will debate tonight as Donald Trump’s running mate.
Jun 28, 2024 • 27 tweets • 8 min read
The Supreme Court decided Fischer v. United States on the scope of Section 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to “corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding.”

Fischer participated in the violent assault on the Capitol on January 6. Does 1512(c)(2) apply? Image Here’s a link to the Court’s decision:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Mar 1, 2024 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
In @just_security, @NormEisen @JoshuaGKolb and I lay out the possible timelines for Trump’s DC trial in detail.

TL;DR:

(1) As long as the Supreme Court rejects Trump’s immunity claim by the end of this Term in June, Trump’s trial should *start* before Election Day.

1/ (2) Whether the trial *ends* before Election Day depends on three factors: (i) exactly when the Supreme Court issues its decision; (ii) whether Judge Chutkan compresses the pre-trial schedule; and (iii) how long the trial takes.

Looking at each of these three factors:

2/
Jul 22, 2022 • 43 tweets • 14 min read
Here's @marceelias with concerns about the Electoral Count Reform Act.

He's an important figure in election law whose views warrant taking seriously.

In short: he's misread two key provisions of the bill.

A thread on where we agree, where we disagree, and where we go from here First, on where @marceelias and I agree. Most importantly, we agree on the principle that courts and not politicians should have the ultimate decision on the legitimate results of elections. We both recognize that politicians are, by their very nature, partisan actors.
Jul 21, 2022 • 30 tweets • 7 min read
@NormEisen with thoughtful criticism of the bipartisan Senate group's proposed Electoral Count Reform Act.

We both agree that ECA reform is absolutely necessary. We also agree (I think) on its central goal: preventing partisan manipulation of the electoral count.

My thoughts: First, @NormEisen points out areas for achievable technical improvements. For example, he's right that in certain circumstances the timeline for federal litigation over a governor's certification could be mere days. That's too short. It's also fixable by moving some deadlines.
Jul 21, 2022 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
"[P]assage of a just-introduced bipartisan proposal to reform the Electoral Count Act [is] essential."

@PostOpinions endorses the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022: "Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin III (D.-W.Va.) have been laboring for months to overhaul the country’s arcane system of counting and certifying votes for president and vice president. Finally, they’ve released a product — and it’s a fine one."
Jul 20, 2022 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Presumably, @marcelias wasn't planning on challenging a Florida or Georgia certification in, say, the Ninth Circuit. So he must mean that he'd prefer to litigate these cases in the Supreme Court of Florida and the Supreme Court of Georgia. One small problem: Every single member of the Supreme Court of Florida was appointed by a Republican governor. And every single member of the Supreme Court of Georgia was appointed by a Republican governor (except one, Justice John J. Ellington, who was elected).
Jul 20, 2022 • 20 tweets • 4 min read
Details about the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022:

collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

This summary outlines an effective bill to protect the process of counting electoral votes from manipulation by politicians in state or federal government. Here's how: (1) The bill ensures a "Single, Conclusive Slate of Electors" from each state.

First, it designates a *single* state official (the governor, but the state can designate a different official if it wants) who is authorized to submit the slate of electors on behalf of the state.
Jul 20, 2022 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
@NormEisen: Who do you want to be the final decision maker in resolving disputes about counting electors?

(a) federal courts
(b) state courts
(c) Congress
(d) state officials

Those are the only available options. In my view, (a) > (b) >>> (c) & (d). It is undeniably true that federal courts are not perfect.

But to say my rank ordering is wrong, you have to either (i) explain why state courts, Congress, or state officials are better; or (ii) identify a new option for a final adjudicator that I haven't thought of already.
Jul 19, 2022 • 23 tweets • 7 min read
Two responses to @marceelias:

(1) The most important perspective is to compare this potential legislation to the status quo. And it is, I think, absolutely undeniable that *any* judicial mechanism is superior to the existing ECA. Consider: Under the existing ECA, politicians in Congress and in governors' mansions can manipulate the count of electoral votes. Pick the potential Speaker of the House you trust *least*, whether that's Kevin McCarthy or Nancy Pelosi.
Jul 18, 2022 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
This is extraordinarily promising: "The slate of electors deemed the legitimate one by the federal courts is conclusive." If Congress ultimately enacts legislation like this, then the greatest threats to the subversion of American presidential democracy can be averted. The key principle animating ECA reform is that no politician, of any party, in state or federal government, should have the power to manipulate the counting of electoral votes. The people's votes, fairly counted, must determine the appointment of electors.
May 19, 2022 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
An important new piece from @ThePlumLineGS. Doug Mastriano, the GOP candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania, gives shape to the coming Crisis of 2024: a rogue governor submits a bogus slate, and the GOP House votes to accept it. That's all it takes. As @ChrisMurphyCT explains, “All Trump needs to throw out American democracy is one governor and a majority in the House,” Murphy told me. “He’s arguably very close to that arrangement.”
Mar 30, 2022 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Me in @washingtonpost on whether President Trump "corruptly" obstructed the electoral count, which would be a federal felony under 18 USC § 1512(c)(s).

I think there is a strong argument the "corruptly" requirement is satisfied. Here's why: The Supreme Court has never interpreted § 1512(c)(2) But it *has* interpreted§ 1512(b), which also uses the word "corruptly," in Arthur Anderson LLP v. United States. The accounting firm was charged with shredding documents related to the Enron scandal.

law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-…
Feb 2, 2022 • 32 tweets • 9 min read
This morning, @SenAngusKing @SenAmyKlobuchar & @SenatorDurbin released a discussion draft of the Electoral Count Modernization Act.

It's an excellent start that can serve as the basis for a bipartisan consensus. It also needs some refining. My thoughts:

king.senate.gov/newsroom/press… First, here's the legislative text:

king.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Jan 30, 2022 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
For those who saw me chat with @AliVelshi this morning on @VelshiMSNBC, here's the paper we discussed: A Realistic Risk Assessment of the Presidential Election of 2024.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… The paper shows just how easy it would be for a swing state governor and a single chamber of Congress, like the House, to manipulate the Electoral Count Act to steal the state's electoral votes.
Oct 8, 2021 • 25 tweets • 5 min read
New essay from me: The Vice President's Non-Existent Unilateral Power to Reject Electoral Votes. It explains in detail why Vice President Pence did *not* have constitutional authority to reject or alter the count of electoral votes on Jan. 6.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

A thread: As new details emerge about President Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, it has become clear that the focus of those efforts was *not* the public objections made by members of Congress on January 6 under the Electoral Count Act.
Jan 5, 2021 • 18 tweets • 5 min read
And here is the final stand. The President asserts that the Vice President has authority (presumably unreviewable) to determine which electoral votes count. This is dangerously incorrect, and it's worth going into detail about why. A thread: This is what @lessig and I have called the "VP Super Power Theory" in our course on disputed presidential elections @Harvard_Law. We do a deep dive into it on the Another Way to Elect a President podcast @EqualCitizensUS:

equalcitizens.us/another-way-to…
Jan 5, 2021 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
Another thread debunking blatantly incorrect theories of how the Electoral Count Act works on January 6, @JennaEllisEsq edition. She speculates that Pence could decline to call for objections to the electoral votes, thereby delaying the process so states can do ... something. No. Here's an article, in @dcexaminer, on her suggestion:

washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-law…
Jan 5, 2021 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
This article makes a serious legal error. It speculates that by stalling through repeated objections during Congress's session on January 6, the objectors could throw the presidential election to the House in what's called a "contingent election." That is absolutely incorrect. The Twelfth Amendment provides for a contingent election when no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes. This happened in 1824, when four candidates split the votes. In a contingent election in the House, each state *delegation* gets one vote--not each House member.
Jul 12, 2019 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
An Electoral College tie would be terrible. A disputed presidential election would be calamitous. The Twelfth Amendment, which @NormOrnstein references, sets out a procedure to resolve presidential elections where no candidate wins a majority of Electors. But the Electoral Count Act of 1887, enacted after the Crisis of 1876 (where Hayes and Tilden disputed the results in 3 states), purports to provide a *different* procedure to resolve disputes about which of several purported slates of Electors from a given state is valid.