1) I continue to research the timing of the submission of electors & the possibility of unsubmitted electoral slates.

So far, even in the Civil War, even in 1877 (which did you know were the two highest turnouts in American history with 1860 being a whopping 81% & 1877 higher)?
2) So far, I can find no case in which any state failed to submit an electoral slate by the deadline.

BTW, I was wrong, the date is not in the Constitution, but is established by federal statute law subsequently.
3) So as best as I can determine, we have never had a case of a delay in naming electors causing a problem.

In 1877, they had TOO MANY electors (it was contested, and there were two slates each from three states).
4) In the Bush v Gore decision, it was the 5-4 decision that indirectly reaffirmed the Dec. electoral certification data, not the 7-2. This is interesting in that it possibly opens the door for a Roberts betrayal if things get that far.

Still, hard for even Roberts . . .
4) contd . . . to overrule precedent of 2000.

5) Now, this is interesting. In the 1947 succession act, Congress changed the wording. It had said
Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, . . .
5) contd . . . declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

But in 1932 and the Twentieth Amendment there was a subtle change:
5) contd . . . “who shall then act as President” or the manner in which “one who is to act” shall be selected, and it concludes by saying that “such person” shall act as President until a President or VP has qualified."

See the missing word? "Officer"
6) It therefore means when legislating pursuant to Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, Congress is not limited to placing “Officers” in the line of succession of those who shall act as President when January 20 rolls around and there is no President-elect or VP-elect . . .
6) contd . . . or if, by my interpretation of this
"the votes have not been counted nor the electors selected" (my wording).

This means in such an event Congress can select a "non-officer."

Say, Cankles or Michael.
7) That's why I think the battle to maintain and hold the Dec. 14 deadline for submitting elector slates is absolutely critical.

8) Also, statute law permits Congress, by a joint resolution, to change the date of the reading of the results from the first Jan. not on a weekend.
9) This was NOT done in 1877 because, as I pointed out before, the inauguration date back then was in March, not January. However, also remember that any law or joint resolution would have to be signed by President Trump.
10) He would veto any nonsense, and I don't think particularly in the Senate there are close to the 2/3 vote to override.

11) So we are left with the possibility that if, say, CA & NY don't certify by Dec. 14, they may say "we can't get it done in time."
12) The only response, as I can determine, is to not count their votes. Trump would win, percentage wise, a massive landslide.

13) This has never happened, even in the Civil War.
14) The Founders apparently never considered the possibility that some states would hate a president so much they would penalize themselves by withholding their electors.

15) As I said even in 1860 the Southern states cast all their electoral votes (not a single one for Lincoln)
I shall continue researching this to see if statute law has devised any responses to such a possibility.
You can follow @LarrySchweikart.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: