Ned Foley Profile picture
Professor & Director, Election Law at Ohio State; Contributing Columnist, The Washington Post.
Steve Claus Profile picture 1 subscribed
Feb 13, 2022 4 tweets 2 min read
Here's another story to read with this question in mind: how different would it be if Alaska's new electoral system were used elsewhere? In Arizona, Ducey's view of the race might differ if he only had to earn one of 4 top spots in a nonpartisan primary...
nytimes.com/2022/02/13/us/… ...& didn't have to win a Trump-influenced GOP primary. Missouri's Senate race also likely would be very different if Alaska's system existed there. McConnell would have easier time recruiting his non-Trump brand of GOP candidates nationally if Alaska's system were nationwide....
Jan 6, 2021 7 tweets 2 min read
1/ This @peterbakernyt piece makes the essential point why Hayes-Tilden was different from today: then there were genuine questions about which of rival slates of electors had been appointed by a body of state government with the authority to make that ... nytimes.com/2021/01/05/us/… 2/ ... appointment. This is not true today. IF President Trump had been successful in getting state legislatures to assert a power to appoint rival slates of electors, in opposition to electors appointed based on the popular vote as certified by the state's governors, then ...
Jan 6, 2021 9 tweets 3 min read
1/1 On @seanhannity last night (at 5:56 of this clip), @SenTedCruz said that the Hayes-Tilden Commission was "charged with reviewing the evidence and making a determination about the disputed ballots." That's incorrect. The Commission was tasked with determining which rival ... 2/2 ... group of electors was appointed by the authority within state government entitled to make that appointment at the time the electors cast their votes on the constitutionally required day. Justice Joseph Bradley, who was held the intentionally tiebreaking seat on the ...
Jan 1, 2021 7 tweets 2 min read
Started reading Gohmert reply. First obvious error (p4): "On January 6th, a joint session of Congress will convene to formally elect the President." The joint session is NOT an election. That was on Dec. 14. The joint session simply counts Dec. 14's votes. courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… 2/ The Gohmert reply is breathtaking & preposterous in claiming (p4) a Vice President can "ignore all electors" whose votes he dislikes. The Constitution never intended this monarchical power to disenfranchise Electoral College votes based on personal whim.
Nov 20, 2020 4 tweets 2 min read
1/4 “This is delusional,” said Mark Braden, ex RNC chief counsel. “I’m a professional Republican so it’s not easy for me to have to deal with...this. Look, voter fraud occurs. I’ve seen it. ... But you have to be realistic about the size and scope of it.” go.osu.edu/emb 2/4 “The Venezuelans didn’t screw around with the voting machines,” Braden said. “That’s 100% total nonsense. I don’t know what’s going on here. It’s very dangerous that we’re undermining the system. Democracy isn’t a God-given right. It’s a fragile process."
Jun 8, 2020 15 tweets 4 min read
1/15 This Electoral College map is my new nightmare scenario: 270towin.com/maps/mLweY I'm working on an essay to explain why, which addresses some of the legal issues arising under the Electoral Count Act, 3 USC 15, if a dispute over the election reaches Congress next January 6. 2/15 This new essay will extend beyond issues explored in previous work, including Preparing for a Dispute Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management, 51 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 309 (2020): go.osu.edu/PDPE
Apr 11, 2020 4 tweets 1 min read
1/4 A line in SCOTUS order is causing confusion: "in order to be counted in this election a voter's absentee ballot must be either (i) postmarked by election day [4/7/20], & received by [4/13/20] at 4:00pm, or (ii) hand-delivered as provided under state law by [4/7/20] at 8:00pm" 2/2 At first, the line seems a SCOTUS mandate not to count any ballot beside these. But that's a misreading. First, right before this quote is a qualifier: "subject to any further alterations that the State may make to state law"; this makes clear state law can count more ballots