The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Pildes on the Election's Guardrails
Rick Pildes offers cautionary notes about specualtive fear-mongering about the administration of the 2024 election.
Multiple political commentators and media outlets have spun narratives of potential election disasters, including efforts to overturn the results. Over at Lawfare, Rick Pildes explains why many of these scenarios ignore the legal guardrails that are in place that are likely to prevent such scenarios from taking place.
As Election Day draws near, anxieties are running high among Democrats about how partisan actors backing Donald Trump might seek to steal the 2024 election. Trump himself has commented that "the only way we're gonna lose" is "if they cheat," raising the specter of another attempt to upend the election results like the country saw in 2020. The danger is real, but much of the speculation about mechanisms Trump or his allies might use to overturn election results risks unnecessarily raising the anxiety level of voters. To be sure, partisan actors might well try various ploys to manipulate the outcome, particularly if the election hinges on one or two states. But there are significant legal, institutional, and political guardrails already in place to thwart these partisan efforts.
A recent essay Neal Katyal authored in the New York Times is a good illustration of these anxieties. Katyal raised several nightmare scenarios for "a potential election crisis" under which, in his view, corrupt partisan actors could seek to deprive Vice President Kamala Harris of a lawful victory, if in fact she wins the election. But in each of the scenarios Katyal raises, the guardrails that are already in place should temper these concerns.
Some of these guardrails are longstanding. Others were enacted as part of the Electoral Count Reform Act. Together, the various guardrails protect against most of the common nightmare scenarios put forward about rogue governors, electors, or state legislatures. And what about Congress? Pildes writes:
Would Congress nonetheless defy the ECRA and act illegally? To reject a state's electoral votes would require a majority in each house of the newly elected Congress. No matter which party controls the House and Senate, its margin is expected to be thin. Sen. Susan Collins was the leader oncr the Republican side in the bipartisan Senate group that drafted the ECRA. Other Republicans in that group who will still be in the Senate in January 2025 include Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, and Shelley Moore Capito. Let's assume for the sake of analysis Republicans control the House and have 51 or 52 Senators. It would still take only one or maybe two Republicans to abide by the terms of the ECRA that they themselves drafted to defeat any plot in Congress to steal the election
None of this means the election will be free of trouble or dispute, only that these particular concerns -- that the election will be stolen or the legitimate results subverted -- fail to account for the legal and other safeguards that are in place.
The piece concludes:
There is no way to make the system entirely failsafe against all risks. I'm particularly worried that Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will have long delays in getting to a definitive result, given that their laws still – unconscionably – refuse to permit their election officials to start processing absentee ballots until election day. If the results of the election cannot be known for several days, this will almost inevitably spawn suspicion and distrust, fueled by social-media conspiracy theories, and might lead to major efforts to disrupt the vote-counting process. In advance of the 2020 election, I wrote that this dynamic of late vote counts would likely be a major focal point of efforts to delegitimize the outcome. I fear the situation is even worse this time around. Too many voters are already primed in advance this time around to believe the election is "being stolen" if the numbers change dramatically overnight and in the days after the election.
Post-voting partisan efforts to manipulate the process could undermine public confidence, be disruptive, and even lead to civil unrest. But there are many more mechanisms in place than a lot of anxious public commentary recognizes to ensure the lawful outcome of the 2024 election.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So now that it looks like Trump will win we can question elections again? Surprise,surprise.
Very much the opposite of what the OP says, but you gotta get your outrage from somewhere I guess.
Except according to the article the Democrats are now worried that Trump will steal the election. The same Democrats that for the last 4 years have basically said claiming fraud in the election process, that stealing an election is possible is misinformation, disinformation. criminal and treasonous. All of a sudden now that it looks like Trump is winning Democrats are anxious that fraud and theft of an election is possible. So what has changed?
A Candidate even worse than Hillary Rodman, remember watching an “Autopsy” of the Rodman 2016 Cam-pain, it wasn’t that she didn’t go to Michigan/Wisconsin/PA enough, it’s every time she went her numbers went down, can’t wait to break out that bottle of “Les Larmes des Libéraux” November 5th (it’ll be November 5th you want to hear “Word Salads” wait for Cums-a-lots Cunt-session statement, umm, like AlGores in 2000, a month or so late, sometime in December)
Frank
Democrats pushing back on false Trump claims from 2020 has zero bearing on the validity of statements by Democrats now. Look at the facts, not the rhetoric.
Democrats from 2020 to now "election fraud is impossible and anyone who claims otherwise should be censored and maybe imprisoned."
Democrats now "Trump will steal the election."
Is your source for this the OP? It points to Neal Katyal, and that's about it.
From only 9 days ago
https://reason.com/2024/10/11/democrats-refusing-to-say-theyd-accept-a-trump-victory-arent-helping/
When you said: “So now that it looks like Trump will win we can question elections again? Surprise,surprise”
As a response to THIS post, that was a lie. You making things up to be mad about.
More correctly Democrats said that Trump's weird, constantly shifting, wacky claims about stealing an election is possible is misinformation and disinformation. Remember, Trump and his supporters bounced around from wacky claim to wacky claim (remember the ex-stripper in Michigan, the postal worker who recanted, etc.), it was clearly a sign of throwing whatever at the wall to see if anything stuck to stall the elderly egotist from having to admit defeat. Now Trump and his MAGA loyalists in some states are using such nonsense to justify think about doing actually undemocratic things in "response."
the postal worker who recanted
Don't you know that he was pressured into that by g-men in black? And they didn't even find Jesse Ventura or Alex Trebek look-alikes to do that!
No, those were the claims the leftist MSM focused on. The more serious electoral defects were tossed out because leftist judges didn't want to deal with the consequences of things like the midnight ballot dumps being mixed with the others.
Imagine the nerve of all of those federal judges that didn't want to disqualify the ballots of many thousands of Americans because of fraud claims that didn't have sufficient evidence to justify that level of disenfranchisement! And yes, even the Republican-nominated ones are leftist!
The same Democrats that for the last 4 years have basically said claiming fraud in the election process, that stealing an election is possible is misinformation, disinformation. criminal and treasonous.
They said the opposite from 2016 to 2020- and they could the federal law enforcement and intelligence establishments to lend the illusion of credibility.
It's (D)ifferent when they lose.
Indeed
CountmontyC, do you find that the thesis of the article is that the Democrats saying Trump will steal the election are cool and good?
Because it still looks like you're outrage farming in the wrong place.
Again
https://reason.com/2024/10/11/democrats-refusing-to-say-theyd-accept-a-trump-victory-arent-helping/
Which has jack shit to do with the OP.
You just wanna complain, even if you have to lie to do it.
So in the link it does it say that Democrats will accept a Trump victory or that they are considering challenging a Trump victory? In this article does it say that the Democrats are "anxious" about a potential steal?
"As Election Day draws near, anxieties are running high among Democrats about how partisan actors backing Donald Trump might seek to steal the 2024 election. "
“As Election Day draws near, anxieties are running high among Democrats about how partisan actors backing Donald Trump might seek to steal the 2024 election. “
Does not say: "now that it looks like Trump will win we can question elections again."
So quit trying to pretend it does.
1) It does not in fact look like Trump is winning.
2) Way to completely miss the point of the post. It’s not about imaginary fraud, which didn’t happen in 2020 and won’t happen in 2024. It’s about a MAGA attempt to steal the election despite the outcome — in other words, like in 2020 — by throwing out the actual votes and declaring Trump the winner.
If he could read for comprehension he wouldn't be a MAGAt.
You could and still can. And almost all such efforts will orient around sore losers making hay to dupe some folks for future gain.
Which headline?
In 2008, I think it was, there was a drumbeat about voter intimidation at pollls. So in my state, my wife went out as an observer for the Democrats. They gave here a cell phone and said her job was only to watch, not confront, and if she saw anything, call the number and one of their roving lawyers would handle it.
She didn’t see squat, and at the ding of 8 it was obvious the Democrat won, so that organization reported all was fair at the voting places.
The question is how much was real concern, and how much was theater in preparation for haymaking if a different result?
Trump amped up in 2020. Everyone should get their day in court. It’s a lie, for the rubes, that he did not. At least one judge bit.
“Now remember, you go to jail for lying. So. Here, out in front of the world, what happened?”
Trump lawyers: Mmmm…nothing much.
Whoa!! That is so different from the talking heads!
Worse, he was still the president. If he, or people, had detected real problems, he could have had a somber talk from the oval office and listed details for the American people. That never happened. Because it was all hot air, as has been going along for, well, for long before that clip above.
“But that was much more serious!”
And? This after the first impeachnent, and numerous initiatives to get a political opponent qua opponent, and all the lovely facetiousness therein. It would do Jan 6 folk in jail or fined proud.
At best, this is a futile effort. People will back off for an election, maybe two, but half a generation down the road they’ll be back at it.
It depends.
What too many fear mongers miss is that everything they thought Trump did wrong in 2020 was using his legal authority as President. They still think he's going to do it again. They refuse to even discuss who has the legal authority to cause mischief this time. TDS is real.
Good to know you think Biden should use his legal authority as President to pressure Harris to throw out the votes of states that don't go her way or to pressure Democratic governors and secretaries of state to "find" enough votes to swing states her way.
The First Amendment allows us to pressure officials to throw out states' electoral votes.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment does not protect fraud.
True.
Kevin Clinesmith did not attempt to argue that forging evidence was protected.
The Hillary Clinton campaign did not try to convince the FEC that lying about the source of the Steele dossier funding was protected.
And pressuring officials to throw out electors you know are leigitmate is not protected either. Trump was guilty in 2020 and the Democrats would be too in 2024 if they copy what he did.
Yes, it is.
Pressuring intelligence agencies to brief the Electoral College on Russiagate conspiracy theories was likewise protected.
It's not protected if you know it's a fraud. Trump's best defense is he is ignorant.
It absolutely is protected.
You agreed fraud is not protected. Since it is a matter of opinion whether Trump acted fraudulently, it can't be the case it is absolutely protected.
Or extortion, or threats.
So why is the conduct in question described as "pressuring officials" instead of "extorting officials"?
I suppose because "extortion" generally implies illegal pressure, not pressure you're legally entitled to apply.
What law entitled Trump to pressure officials to throw out votes?
The claim that what Trump did in 2020 was use his legal authority as POTUS is mindnumbingly ignorant and stupid.
TDS is real. MAGAts like yourself have been turned into braindead sheep by it.
Given the stakes, I think we can be understanding regarding so-called "speculative fear-mongering" (typo corrected).
The "guardrails" did ultimately hold last time and this time we have the Biden Administration in control.
Of course, one "guardrail" that did not quite go totally smoothly was the electoral count. That was ... delayed ... a tad.
Yes, everything is safe now that your set of politicians control the guardrails. Your set of politicians is pure of heart.
Looks like you haven't read the OP.
Just more sad, pathetic Democrat projection. Projection is really all they do. Republican controlled districts are not closing down in the middle of the night for no apparent reason, republican districts are not taping the windows of counting centers with pizza boxes, or banning election observers. A Republican administration did not implement measures creating a risk of illegal aliens voting nor did Republican legislators block the SAVE Act that would have provided safeguards against illegal voter registrations. Just to name a few, patented Democrat electoral games.
Democratic ones didn’t do it either. Your claims they did are such a pack of lies that Trump’s own lawyers refused to present them in court because they knew they were false and they knew they could get punished or disbarred if they tried to present them as true. Giuliani is a big example. He repeatedly claimed to the press that there was massive fraud. But once he got in court he told the judge there was no fraud claim, just a claim election workers didn’t follow some minor legal technicalities of election law
He waa disbarred anyway, because in New York a lawyer isn’t allowed to lie to the press about a pending case of this nature. And he lost in court even on the minor fechnicalities.
Exactly what did I write that was false? Everything I note above is true, notwithstanding your attempt to discredit and distract with your confused narrative.
Your statements are implying that any of that demonstrates election fraud, which it does not. That is the lie.
Notice he didn't cite any of his claims. All of that was debunked.
The Durham Report debunked stolen election claims.
https://reason.com/2023/05/16/for-6-5-million-durham-report-finds-fbi-didnt-have-solid-dirt-on-trump-and-russia/
Nothing I cite was “debunked.”
You didn’t cite anything (likely because your claims are long debunked).
That’s an absurd Mollygodiva. Nothing I cite is false. You are projecting an implication of election fraud. I note simply that there were irregularities and that Republican legislative efforts to shore up safeguards to protect ballot security have been opposed by Democrats.
It's all false.
No one closed down in the middle of the night for no reason.
The pizza boxes thing had cameras in the room.
It wasn't election observers kicked out, it was partisan Republicans looking to make trouble.
And the rest ignores Covid and gets less coherent as to what it's talking about.
You are a liar. Or too dumb to realize when you've been lied to for years.
What a pile of horse shit. So they actually did block off the view of observes with pizza boxes and did throw out election observers? In other words all I’ve noted is actually true. And who knows whether whatever video footage existed captured details hidden by the obscured windows? And whether any video footage was a legally sufficient substitute for statutorily required observers. Probably not but I guess when you’re busy saving democracy by hiding your counting, or something, who has time for these questions?
Debunked.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/10/fact-check-videos-crowd-locked-out-detroit-center-lack-context/6195038002/
What a joke. Did you read that story? The facts are all but conceded. I guess we have to redefine “debunked” as factual true but democrats just don’t like it. Poll watchers were removed. Windows were blocked. But they say, well context, they were afraid of Covid and felt intimidated. So, they have to destroy any transparency in the counting process to save the counting process. Thank goodness Democrats are working hard to save democracy, or something.
Poll watchers in excess of the required number, both Democratic and Republican, were removed. The windows were covered because of the bad behavior of those ejected and many Republican poll watchers remained inside the entire time. Context blows up your silly claims and insinuations.
If you say so. I think a poorly sourced and poorly written story blows up your silly claims and insinuations. Interesting how much context is required to elide over the truth. Also interesting is this new found obsession with context, something totally lacking in the coverage of President Trump. Where was the context in the reporting of the Charlottesville lie? That the Russian collusion lie was bought and paid for by Hillary through her law firm cut out was important context the NY Times didn’t care about. That the laptop letter lie was orchestrated by the Biden campaign was also rather significant context that is and was of no consequence to the media.
But maybe you’re right Malika, I’ll have to look up the Michigan statutes and see where being sacred of Covid and feeling “intimated” by republican poll watchers, allows Democrat ballot counters to board up windows with pizza boxes and through out the mean, intimidating republicans. Don’t know what pizza franchise is big in Michigan. Could they legally use any pizza box to block up windows or are the boxes of a specific pizza chain required?
No. In one place in Detroit they blocked off the view of people outside the room. But both parties had observers in the room throughout. And of course, being in the room meant that one did not need to peer through the windows to observe.
No. There were no places without observers from the GOP.
Indeed, Trump's lawyers famously had to concede when they went to court in Pennsylvania that the GOP had a "non-zero number" of observers in the room.
Each party is supposedly allowed election observers. It was the Republican election observers who were tossed out.
“The Detroit Free Press reported that challengers from both sides were locked out because the limit on challengers had already been exceeded.”
Of course you're also a 2020 truther. Even as you condemn Dems being anxious for questioning the 2024 election
Really covering yourself in glory on this thread, eh?
And you had nothing to say about 2016 election truthers?
I can understand one of the reasons why 2020 election truthers believe as they do.
They have been told that the 2016 election was stolen by a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of Facebook ads bought by the Russians®™ acting in concert and participation with Donald J. Trump.
The federal law enforcement and intelligence establishments gave the illusion of credibility to 2016 election trutherism.
Both the Clinton campaign and Kevin Clinesmith admitted to committing crimes to further 2016 election trutherism.
In 2018, two-thirds of Democratic voters felt that the Russians®™ actually changed the vote totals.
Think about it.
If this side was willing to violate campaign finance laws and laws against forgery on a delegitimization campaign against Trump, what wouldn't they do to win the 2020 election?
They will do everything they can, including looking the other way when assassination attempts are made.
That was not what either of them admitted.
Utterly false. Why do you lie about things that are easily checked?
We thought we did have guardrails in 2020.
What scares me is the Democrats refusing to accept a Trump victory and/or claiming Trump unfit for office.
That would get very ugly, very quickly. And I wouldn't put it past them....
"What scares me is the Democrats refusing to accept a Trump victory"
Lol, every accusation is a confession!
Democrats haven't accepted an election they lost since at least 2000 so GFY with that BS. You're just pissed your tactics are being applied to your side as well.
Gore conceded the 2000 election as soon as his legal options ran out. Kerry conceded the 2004 election immediately. Hillary conceded the 2016 election immediately.
The hell she did!
Her people might have -- IDK -- but she did NOT.
Are you quibbling about 'immediately'?
Here is her concession speech, mid-day the day after the election.
This timeline has her calling Trump to concede at 11:40 PM of election day. How much sooner would you have her conceding?
So it seems you are old enough to remember 2016.
Indeed we are.
Michael Tracey also remembers.
Well, we have been through that once already.
Being legally elected and being fit for the office are entirely separate issues. Democrats accepted that he was legally elected in 2016 although we knew he was unfit.
No. they did not accept that he was legally elected in 2016.
Yes we all remember Hillary’s speech outside the Capitol and the mob breaking into the Capitol.
We do remember the Clinton campaign admitting to crimes.
https://archive.md/Ldcu4
And if we’re going to talk 2016 election, Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton, actually was found by the FEC to have violated federal campaign law. In stoking the fraudulent claim that Trump was a clandestine agent of the Kremlin, Clinton’s campaign paid its law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to concoct the story; then it booked the payment as legal expenses rather than opposition research. As a result, the FEC fined the Clinton campaign.
We also remember Kevin Clinesmith, a laweyer for the FBI, admitting to forging evidence for the purpose of obtaining a FISa warrant to further 2016 election trutherism.
This is level 4 of Trump denialism: Clinton was just as bad.
She played fast and loose with hardball politics which resulted in an FEC violation. You are fucking nuts if you think that’s anywhere near 10 billion light years from what Trump did: trying to steal an election after the fact, including rooting for the Jan 6 rioters.
The campaign committed a crime.
Clinesmith committed a crime by presenting forged evidence to a FISA court.
Given these two overt crimes committed, the whole "Trump Colluded With the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election from Hillary Clinton" propaganda campaign may very well have been a criminal conspiracy.
Were there more crimes committed?
Durham found no conspiracy or other crimes. Clinton was guilty of hardball politics that went over the campaign finance line. Classic level-4 Trump denialism.
What the Clinton campaign did was mask payment for opposition research as legal expenses.
That went beyond hardball politics into criminal behavior.
Kevin Clinesmith admitted to forging evidence presented to a FISA court for the purpose of obtaining a warrant.
That was beyond hardball politics; that was a crime and a violation of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
We are where we are because of these crimes.
And a lot of people would think, if these people commit crimes, even constitutional violations, for the purpose of delegitimizing the Trump presidency, what wouldn't they do to win the 2020 election?
Even assuming for the sake of argument Clinton's actions went beyond hardball politics, they were not part of a conspiracy (again, Durham said Clinesmith did not conspire with Clinton) and the crime is still billions of light years from what Trump did.
You weren't content with Level 4 Trump denialism and have reached Level 1: the election was stolen from Trump.
Then you remember incorrectly.
No Captcrisis, we remember Madonna speech about "blowing up the White House."
I woildn’t be so sanguine. There has been a grassroots campaign to take over local election boards and fill them with loyalists. Individual election boards and workers could potentially do a great deal of damage. As Stalin said, it isn’t who gets to vote that matters. It’s who gets to count the votes.
The crimes are going on right now. Musk is paying people to register to vote in swing states which is illegal under federal law.
https://www.mediaite.com/news/clearly-illegal-top-election-attorney-accuses-elon-musk-of-breaking-law-with-1-million-lotto-style-giveaway-to-pa-voters/
If Trump wins, this law breaking will mean nothing at all, just like any other crime that might affect him.
Wrong on all counts.
He is not paying anyone to register.
He is offering already registered voters a chance to enter a lottery if they agree to support the US Constitution.
And he is only giving one person a day the prize, so at most 17 "crimes" will occur.
Not WIDESPREAD, so no harm no foul per democrat rules.
> He is not paying anyone to register.
Effectively he is.
> He is offering already registered voters a chance to enter a lottery if they agree to support the US Constitution.
And to become “already registered,” it is necessary to register to vote if you haven’t already.
> And he is only giving one person a day the prize, so at most 17 “crimes” will occur.
Many people will do things, such as buying a lottery ticket, for the mere chance of winning. 52 U.S.C. 10307(c) makes it a crime to offer payment for registering to vote. Musk is offering a financial incentive to register to a lot more than 17 people.
> Not WIDESPREAD, so no harm no foul per democrat rules.
Unless Musk’s actions change the outcome of the election, which I don’t expect, they won’t be a basis for challenging the results of the election. That doesn’t mean it’s OK for Musk to break the law.
As for whether he can be prosecuted, I think that primarily depends on whether intent can be proved. I doubt that the fact that the payment is uncertain due to the lottery structure is a viable defense because if successful, it would allow any illegal contract to be turned into a legal contract just by adding a provision that makes payment uncertain. For example, hiring a contract killer is illegal, and you can’t make it legal by adding, say, a provision to the contract that says that the killer doesn’t get paid if he is arrested before he can carry out the hit.
None of this matters. Trump is ineligible for office under 14A.
Scotus says otherwise. Harris is ineligible because she is not a natural-born citizen. Her parents were not citizens when she was born.
According to the rest of the world, she was born in Oakland, California. Sadly, we have to admit that is part of the United States.
And there is this small inconvenient truth:
"Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution directs that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens."
"and subject to the laws thereof."
This was intentional -- Indians were not citizens and not
"subject to the laws thereof" (back then) and this was explicit.
If Heels Up's parents weren't "subject to the laws thereof" (i.e. citizens) when she was born, she ain't one by birth, unless she was born before 1789.
I bet you have heard of Wong Kim Ark and are just trolling?
The relevant language of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Riddle me this. If non-citizens are not subject to the laws of the United States, then how can they be deported for violating the laws of the United States?
Aliens do not have to commit a crime to be deported. If they are not welcome here, then they can be removed.
If they are not subject to the laws of the United States, then such laws cannot be used to deport them, doofus.
Would you prefer that they be summarily executed?
"Subject to the laws" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Although riddle me this — if a 20-year-old is a minor to young to possess alcohol, how can he be criminally prosecuted (as an adult) for possessing it?
"If they are not subject to the laws of the United States, then such laws cannot be used to deport them, doofus."
Um, diplomats aren't subject to the laws of the United States, but they can be expelled.
Of all the correct arguments against the "children of non-citizens aren't citizens" position, you managed to pick one that was dead wrong.
Think about it, TIP. If non-citizens are not subject to the laws of the United States, then their unauthorized entry does not violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325.
not guilty -
Sen. Trumbull re the citizenship clause (emphasis added, brackets mine):
Notice he refers to people as being "subjects." Quite different notions of subjectship and citizenship were at work then.
Remarks from Sen. Howard agreeing with Trumbull follow in the Congressional record, explaining a distinction between the sort of "full and complete jurisdiction" (his words) intended here, and a lesser sort of jurisdiction that just means, subject to US law. The primary touchstone of the former type of jurisdiction is being "not subject to any foreign power."
There are many other quotes from the Congressional record that can be similarly cited. All of them support this simple point: The people who created and enacted the citizenship clause did NOT think that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely meant "subject to US law while you are in the US." This directly refutes what you are saying.
Notwithstanding the above, my opinion is that Kamala Harris is eligible to be President and is a natural born citizen, because she was a citizen at birth automatically by the circumstances of her birth (irrespective of whether such automatic citizenship at birth is pursuant to constitutional requirement, legislative provision, or other law or policy). There are however, some arguments to the contrary.
Yeesh. You lawyers with your fancy degrees don't know squat.
I did a google search on the fourteenth amendment, and it turns out that whether or not Harris is a citizen depends on whether or not her mom paid taxes the year she was born.
Do your own research, folks.
WTF?
"Indians not taxed". 😉
Josh, he's making a joke. He sees all the posts from the anti-Harris crowd, he's probably tired of reading all their racist bullshit, and so he's making a joke-post, arguing (with tongue firmly in cheek) the most idiotic legal argument, in an effort to point out to the usual racist subjects, "Yes, THIS is exactly how stupid you look."
I thought it was pretty successful, and fairly funny, to be honest. YMMV, of course.
Could be, but TwelveInch is a card-carrying member of the anti-Harris crowd.
I LOL'd
"Sadly, we have to admit"
Why sadly?
I assume Mr. Long isn't a big fan of the City of Oakland.
"Harris is ineligible because she is not a natural-born citizen."
Roger S, is that as true as everything else you have said?
Liar. SCOTUS never ruled on Trumps eligibility. They said that Colorado can't make that determination.
Cuntala the 'Ho raised bail money for violent rioters.
https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643
SHE'S disqualified, which means she can't kick Brandon out of office for HIS disqualification and become President early!
It's always nice to see supporters of *Trump* (who claimed on Howard Stern that he had so much unprotected sex at one period it was equivalent to the dangers of being in Vietnam) attack Harris' over sexual activity. Such transparent misogyny.
Another juvenile misogynist muted.
Misogyny and two lies in one sentence. Pretty impressive.
And, voting discrimination by race is unconstitutional.
How did that go during Jim Crow?
If Trump was legitimately elected, I don't see Congress refusing to count the electors because of the 14A, even if Trump v. Anderson might have left that open.
How is Trump disqualified?
14th Amendment, section 3; see Trump v. Anderson. The lower courts determined that Trump was ineligible for office; the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump could be on the ballot in Colorado anyway but didn’t overturn the finding that Trump was ineligible for office.
SCOTUS held that congressional legislation is required to enforce 14.3's ineligibilty clause. As such, the Colorado state court holding that Trump is ineligible was reversed.
"SCOTUS held that congressional legislation is required to enforce 14.3’s ineligibilty clause. As such, the Colorado state court holding that Trump is ineligible was reversed."
The factual findings of both Colorado courts that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection were not disturbed. The reversal by SCOTUS was on other grounds. Whether Trump did or did not engage in insurrection was not part of the SCOTUS ratio decidendi.
The factual findings of two courts with zero jurisdiction over the matter is worth less than a fart in a hurricane. This is especially true since neither court followed criminal procedure for the trials.
It’s binding if Trump wants to hold a state or local office in Colorado. Trump could appeal to SCOTUS if that occurs, but Anderson did not reverse that part of the holding below that would apply to state and local office.
The judgments were reversed, which means the underlying factual findings neither have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect.
The matter can be relitigated, but lower Colorado courts are bound by the Colorado Supreme's Court holding that Trump engaged in an insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court can reverse itself or SCOTUS can weigh in if they don't.
"The factual findings of two courts with zero jurisdiction over the matter is worth less than a fart in a hurricane. This is especially true since neither court followed criminal procedure for the trials."
When does any court hearing a civil action follow criminal procedure for the trials?
Almquist’s claim was SCOTUS left in place the holding below that Trump is not eligibile to be president, not the holding below that he engaged in insurrection. The former holding was reversed.
The finding was vacated.
Not true. Reversal and vacatur are not the same thing.
The Court held that the Colorado courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction. As all acts of a court that lacks jurisdiction are void, there are no factual findings anymore.
Nor would they be binding in some bizzaro future situation where Trump ran for office in Colorado. Why? Because while Colorado would have jurisdiction over such a suit, that was not the suit before it.
If you want to see the current threats to the voting process check out Oliver’s video on Republican subversion of elections. I think the goal is to make people so suspicious of any voting system as to automatically discount any result that doesn’t favor them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkK3W0lOKcc
Pildes seems naive.
His guardrails reliance seems predicated on a notion of processes which go in timely order to completion. My concern, and I think Katyal's concern, is what outcome to expect if well-planned obstructions deliver endless delay.
In that case, wouldn't Republican control of a majority of House delegations deliver the election to Trump, with the Supreme Court weighing in to call that the legitimate Constitutional process to resolve ambiguity persisting with no end in sight?
Note also, in a tight election, multiple state counts will create opportunities to create tangled delays, with disputes, doubts, and reiterations likely to abound. Persistence of such a pattern in only one state among several might be enough to steal a close election.
"If well-planned obstructions deliver endless delay."
That's a possibility.
"Wouldn’t Republican control of a majority of House delegations deliver the election to Trump"
That only kicks if there is no majority for one candidate. Only ways are (a) the EC ties at 269-269, or (b) enough electors go rogue and vote for neither Trump nor Harris.
It could also happen if the a state sends no electors to Congress because partisans make it impossible to do so under state law.
I think there's a strong case that, if a state doesn't send any electors to Congress, their EC votes don't count towards the total you need to get a majority of.
If you want fair elections, then have all votes cast and counted on Election Day, with observers. That is what most civilized countries do. Anything else is just asking for cheating.
And let's not forget this article
https://reason.com/2024/10/11/democrats-refusing-to-say-theyd-accept-a-trump-victory-arent-helping/
Salty and petty Dems exist. But the do not have the institutional purchase on their end akin to Trump.
You're not going to bothsides tu quoque your way out of how much the GOP as a political institution has discarded baseline democratic ideals.
Nutpicking aside, Dems just haven't done that.
Partial list of "civilized countries" that allow early voting: Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand.
You know how I know that this kind of assertion is being made in bad faith? It's because we could have reformed the process so that we had a uniform process for all federal elections, across the country.
A single voter ID requirement. A uniform approach on absentee and early voting. Rules on how votes would be counted. All of that.
But Republicans couldn't bring themselves to deal. They obstructed the Democrats' bill, and we couldn't get over a filibuster to make it law. It turns out that MAGA politics would rather bitch about a patchwork of legal processes, which gives them plenty of opportunities to capitalize on voter ignorance on how the process actually works. They don't care about integrity in our elections, the same way they don't care about immigration or inflation. They'd just prefer to run on it, because a bunch of gullible rubes like yourself lap it up like the simple-minded golden retrievers you are.
Good doggie, good!
Taking a minute or two to guess what you're thinking, sounds like maybe the "For the People" Act from 2019? But I'm not seeing where it had any particular deadlines for counting votes at all, much less same day. Did I overlook it, or are you referring to some other bill?
I am talking about Republicans bringing themselves to "deal." They could have supported that bill and negotiated provisions to their liking. That's how legislation in a divided government is supposed to work.
Not that all of the heat over wanting an immediate result on the evening of Election Day makes any sense, as an "election integrity" issue. But Republicans could have negotiated for it, if they wanted to.
Oh, I see. So if only the 'Pubs had given the 'Crats everything they wanted in terms of baking in universal pre-registration, on-the-spot registration, guaranteed yuuuuge early voting periods, etc. etc., they MIGHT have been able to get day-of counting in return. It's hard to comprehend why they didn't go for that!
Oh, it makes perfect sense as an election integrity issue -- if your true goal is to count the votes that you've received rather than providing endless opportunities to "find" more.
Oh, go fuck yourself. Of course any legislative negotiation is going to result in - ought to result in - dropping some of the things the Democrats' bill would have pushed for. I never meant to insinuate otherwise, you shit-eating twat.
Never mind that a lot of this stuff doesn't tilt any particular way, partisan-wise. Why are Republicans hurt by same-day registration? Pre-registration? Early voting periods? The only reason Republicans are allergic to any of this stuff is because they're standard-issue targets for stopping Black people from voting. Maybe if they got their head out of their asses, they'd realize that elderly voters, people who work for a living, people who live in more rural areas, etc., also benefit from some of these things.
Oh, it makes perfect sense as an election integrity issue — if your true goal is to count the votes that you’ve received rather than providing endless opportunities to “find” more.
Explain to me why a fully legal voter, with every right to vote, who submits a mail-in or absentee ballot via the mail, prior to Election Day in accordance with the law, but whose ballot is received only after Election Day, ought to be disenfranchised, in order to protect against this entirely fabricated risk.
It seems to me that the only dead-certain advantage to early and mail-in voting is Republicans, due to the overwhelming percentage of the military who align with the R's.
Can you imagine the outrage if early voting were eliminated? "Yeah, go risk your life for your country. You wanna vote? Sure, just get your CO to authorize a 5-day pass for you, so you can fly from Afghanistan to Germany-to-Atlanta-to-San-Diego; take a bus for 3 hours inland, to your home. Vote. Then turn around and get back to the base."
"Oh, all the men at the base want to vote? Okay, we'll shut down the base for 5 straight days. That's something I'm sure the enemy will not notice."
What is the alternative? "No early voting...except for the one huge voting bloc that favors my political party, so we'll make an exception for the military." No one would accept a bullshit policy like that.
Why do so many follow Republicans hate voters so much? My view: make it as easy to vote as possible, and hope that my policies are more popular than your policies. If it turns out that there starts to be massive fraud during elections, THEN we can start tinkering more with Voter ID laws.
(It's always been a bit weird to me that my fellow Republicans often, say, about guns, "Yes, of course it's horrible that there are thousands and thousands of 'bad' gun uses each year. Suicides, murders, accidental shootings, etc. BUT...that is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of all gun uses, and so, on balance, it's best to infringe our freedom re guns as little as possible."
While, also saying, about voting fraud, "Yes, only a tiny fraction of people vote fraudulently. And, since people on both sides seem to do it about equally, the net effect is even more insignificant. But, since this tiny tiny number of improper votes is not zero, then we need to enact lots of laws, even though we also know that it will result in fewer legitimate votes being cast. Even one "bad" vote is one more than we should accept, and it's worth having draconian laws if it will prevent even that one bad vote."
I don't get the double-standard.
Yes = My view: make it as easy to vote as possible, and hope that my policies are more popular than your policies.
santamonica811 — Provable misuse of guns to shoot people is more prevalent than provable fraudulent voting. Yet voting opportunities are far more common than legitimate gun opportunities to justifiably shoot someone.
So if voting fraud creates public risk sufficient to justify laws to guard against it in advance, why doesn’t risk of improper shooting—which is proportionately far more likely—likewise justify laws to prevent harm in advance?
Actually, even if you narrow the scope of consideration only to effects on election results, improper shootings have a greater impact than improper voting does. For any given election, there will be far more legitimate votes prevented because voters were shot and killed, or shot and disabled, than there will be votes miscast by means of election fraud.
On that basis alone, why don’t leftists demand gun registration requirements as rigid as the rights’ voter ID demands? And in both cases, justify it on the basis only to protect election outcomes.
I wonder how many right-wingers would join me in a policy compromise—the right gets whatever voter ID requirements it wants. And the left gets whatever gun registration requirements it wants.
Let’s hear it from the right-wing commenters. If I let you design a program of voter ID requirements, and even impose Election Day in-person voting as the only way to vote, can I design a program to guard election integrity by universal gun registrations, and bans on gun carrying on Election Day?
Republicans have introduced numerous election integrity bills, and the Democrats killed them. The USA has a federal system of government. The states should be able to run fair elections, without intrusive federal laws.
I am not talking about one-sided performative nonsense that isn't intended to become law.
I am talking about an opportunity that the Republicans bypassed to achieve bipartisan reforms that would have applied nationwide. The same way they did over the attempt to reform the asylum process earlier this year. They never want to fix anything. They just want to run on grievance.
Hey, please don't insult the golden retrievers!
And if the Jews had been willing to accept the "reasonable" restrictions that the Nazis wanted to impose on them, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust.
Simon probably believes that...
What the fuck are you talking about?
Double-plus impossible, as recently fronted by our bastion of journalistic integrity 60 Minutes.
But seriously: taking every bit of this sort of overwrought, despairing whining as true, there's still precisely nothing that can't be addressed by properly scaling the operation. The fact that they opt not to do so is all the evidence needed that they don't really want a solution.
Sorry, excerpt starts around 6:10 in the linked video.
What a silly piece of overwrought whining.
Local elections offices are properly scaled to do their jobs, which includes counting votes. What they’re asking for in Pennsylvania is to do what is already done in many Red and Blue states: the physical prepwork needed before counting mail ballots—far more time-consuming than the final act of vote-counting—as the ballots are received.
And the reason so many states do that is to allow release of results on Election Night. As of Oct 8th, 9 million Pennsylvanians had registered to vote, with 1.45 million of those applying for mail-in ballots. But LoB, mindlessly following Trump’s directions, doesn’t want results released on election night, disingenuously saying that since it will take 10x as much time to count only the mail votes than all other votes, why, every local election office in Pennsylvania should just always hire 10x more people than they’d need in a rational world.
Such whining notwithstanding and separate from specific Pennsylvania issues, as a matter of both democratic principles (small ‘d’) and simple ethics, representative democracy works best when all eligible voters have full equal-in-fact ballot access.
That means in voting arguments, today’s Democrats and Independents like me have a simple, obvious advantage: a long tradition of supporting the principle of universal suffrage, while the long-standing Republican tradition, exacerbated by Trump’s alt-right ethno-nationalists, does not.
And whatever the circumstances, that means D’s start with an easily explainable bias toward wanting more eligible voters to vote. R’s, on the other hand, must undertake the difficult task of attempting to explain their much less-easily-justified desire of wanting fewer eligible voters to vote. So D’s typically work first toward reducing barriers for everyone eligible—an easy contrast to R’s necessity to start sorting out those eligible voters they’d simply prefer to have a little harder time.
That’s why, though a conservative by temperament, I support Democrats in a mutual effort to improve voting processes—especially eliminating pretextual friction such as LoB endorses, and standardizing methodologies and practices (including oversight, audit and security) enabling America’s progress towards a more perfect union. On the other hand, some here parrot Republican’s irrational, unending pretextual security fears as they continue to stand athwart history, yelling incoherently about insanely implausible election conspiracies.
One reason traditional voter suppression techniques are increasingly ineffective is that voters are increasingly recognizing which party consistently favors voting practices that make it easier for all qualified voters to vote, and which party keeps devising barriers that make it harder—and especially, disproportionally harder for some carefully-targeted selected populations (as well-demonstrated by a number of earlier comments. Because, those selected populations become increasingly motivated to make it through the barriers and vote out the ones trying to block their vote.
(And yes, I acknowledge that we all need to continue shaming the outlier New York Democratic Party to get with the program and reform their voting system, that historically includes voting barriers that would do Jim Crow proud).
It’s a nice wall of text and all, but after stripping away the poor-faith mindreading (which I’m SURE Sarc will drop by and slam you for any second now – LOL) and quasi-histrionic handwaving (10x, rly?), there’s not much to respond to.
Other states in our fine Union start processing absentee ballots on Election day, and somehow manage to release results that day. Perhaps they’ve just opted to skip the whining and dramatically holding the country hostage and instead — the horror! — prepare for, staff, and work within the legislative scheme they have.
LOB,
Which states are those? (I'm mostly interested in: Which states with huge populations do zero beforehand with re to mail-in envelopes, and only start opening envelopes on the date of the actual election?)
In other words; if you tell me that that's how it's done in Idaho or Utah, I will not be impressed. But if you tell me that's how it's done in Texas or Florida or Ohio, then you possibly could change my mind on this.
PA, WI - two battle ground states = Which states are those?
Nope, they're prohibited from doing anything with mailed-in ballots prior to Election Day in PA and WI.
Purple Martin — My guess is that the most prevalent form of voter fraud in the nation is perpetrated by folks who have residences in two or more states, and vote two or more times because they can.
Thus, to assure voting integrity, I propose a law that anyone who has more than one place of residence must submit to each Secretary of State in each state of residence, certified documents from the Secretaries of State in all other states of residence, attesting whether the would-be voter is, or is not, eligible to vote in that jurisdiction. The process can be automated by databases kept in the offices of each Secretary of State, and automatically updated prior to any state or local election nationwide. Of course it will be the obligation of the would-be voter to keep each database properly informed about changes of residence or voting status.
Any would-be voter found eligible to vote in more than one jurisdiction should be barred from the polls in all of them. And investigated on suspicion of voter fraud.
Intention to commit voter fraud should be presumed if the proper paper work has not been submitted prior to each election in any state where the voter has a residence. But no such jeopardy will apply to anyone who has a residence in only one state, or who does not register to vote anywhere.
Can't be too careful about election integrity. Especially in cases of voting at multiple residences, which I have no doubt completely certain conviction is the most prevalent form of voter fraud. This is one voter-fraud-protection proposal I do not expect the Ds to resist, so the Rs should applaud it, and give it bi-partisan support.
I'm not sure what you consider "civilized countries" but postal voting, by itself, is common in North America, Europe and Oceania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting
And votes not being finished counted on election day can be found in other "civilized countries," in the recent English election some seats weren't declared until days after polling day.
California typically takes a month to count votes.
I actually read your link and only three nations use postal voting as a regular method of voting. All the rest involved in the link have heavy restrictions ( most often outside of the nation on election day) on who and when they can vote by mail.
We have been 100% uncivilized in Oregon since 1998.
It is OR, hardly a bastion of civilization.
XY — Civilization requires population—and is thus an impossibility almost everywhere in Oregon east of the Cascades. Geographers will note that along much of its southern border, Oregon abuts Nevada—a political fact the landscape has not noticed.
Shortly after getting married, I brought my bride on a journey across the intervening distance separating Boise, ID, from the shoulder of Mt. Hood. As a life-long Easterner, she was freaked out. Along the entire 400+ mile way, she saw but a tiny fraction of others, compared to the numbers strolling sidewalks along her everyday 2-mile bus commute in eastern Massachusetts.
At no point in U.S. history have all votes been counted on Election Day.
Incomplete analysis, in that it doesn't address partisan state legislatures appointing "alternate electors" to send to Congress, and a partisan Congress from accepting same.
The Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
You can't make it illegal for a state legislature to appoint electors unless you want to change the constitution. Or ignore it.
State legislatures are not permitted to change the state's own rules after the election is over. If Trump wins PA, the state legislature can't certify Harris electors because they don't like the outcome.
That's quite true; For constitutional purposes, election day IS the day the elector were appointed. Once it has passed, it's too late to change the rules retrospectively.
Doesn't mean judges won't try to occasionally, but they're special, rules like that don't apply to them.
Coincidentally, Politico published a long-form piece today going into considerable detail on this topic.
The article then goes on to essentially war-game scenarios around the five above bullets, focusing on specific ways Republican state legislatures could test the old and new guardrails—including Congress's 2022 amendments to the Electoral Count Act of 1887—Rick Pildes is depending on.
Well worth reading. Politico and Pildes generally agreement that a Trump attempt to override an election loss is likely, while being highly unlikely to succeed. But Politico (not unexpectedly for a political site seeking clicks) goes a little further in saying "...a risky but plausible"," slim and dangerous path" remains.
"Coincidentally"
Sure
Just a bit testy there, aren'tcha?
"“Coincidentally”" ???
I'm not certain just which conspiracy theory you're going for today. Please clue me in.
• He will try to ensure Harris is denied 270 votes in the Electoral College, sending the election to the House, where Republicans are likely to have the numbers to choose Trump as the next president.
See the election of 1876.
Congress can pick any of the top FIVE candidates (based on number of electoral votes).
They can pick any of the top 3, not 5, as of the 12th Amendment. Which isn't exactly recent. For picking the VP, it's the top 2 only.
"I don't make things up."
Trump will want to stir up enough of his base so that if he loses, there will be mass protests, violence, etc. disrupting the outcome. Guardrails aren’t relevant to that. If anything, Trump may use the guardrails’ holding as evidence of theft.
And fwiw we can be sure that all the Trump supporters here will go along with his claims, just as they did in 2020. I can think of no pro-Trump poster here who has actually acknowledged without qualification that Trump lost legitimately in 2020.
He didn't.
“…as they continue to stand athwart history, yelling incoherently about insanely implausible election conspiracies.“
Tell me you're a Trumpist fuckwit without telling me you're a Trumpist fuckwit
Meh. This doesn’t mean anything, other than the Democratic Party is now clearly convinced they have a very good chance of losing both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
The Democrats have tried to tie Trump up in both state and federal courts on both criminal charges and civil charges. They have tried to get his name removed from state ballots. They have even pushed their own candidate out of the race and replaced him by nomination, not election, when it was clear he would lose in a rout.
Not one of these things have worked thus far. For some unimaginable horrifying reason, Trump is actually *gaining* momentum.
Hence the latest scare tactic.
My feeling is it’s way too late for this to work. The only people who might possibly fall for this gambit are already solidly on the anti-Trump train. Anyone on the fence will likely be rolling their eyes.
So: this, too, shall pass. People do get a little crazed around election day. It’ll be over soon.
Care to try again without the partisan lies, or are you incapable of normal human behavior?
“This doesn’t mean anything, other than the Democratic Party is now clearly convinced they have a very good chance of losing both the popular vote and the Electoral College”
Nonsense, Democrats have been openly concerned about challenges to mail-in ballots, refusals to certify election results, state legislators replacing electors, etc., for years.
The Democratic Party attempted to prevent their political opponent from even appearing on the ballot, not once, not twice, but in more than 10 states. Had they been successful, they would have disenfranchised millions of voters. I will never forgive them for this sickening display of lawfare, not unless they repent; nor will I ever again believe any of their fine-sounding words about democracy.
They talk a big game, but they play it rotten to the core. I have zero trust in that party's leadership.
Oh yeah the Dems political opponent.
Just a random guy; nothing to see here.
I mean, I think Trump should have stayed on the ballot but the amount of work you've done to cut out any context at all is a tell.
Something tells me 'this sickening display of lawfare' is less dramatic for you than it appears, as your needle was pegged in the Demoncrat zone some time before Trump.
DaveM — A Constitutional point was in dispute. Depending on the outcome, had an unqualified candidate been barred from the ballot, nobody would have been disfranchised in the slightest.
You declare it an outrage because the dispute got resolved in your favor. Do you concede outrage is justified from folks who lost that dispute?
"the Democratic Party is now clearly convinced they have a very good chance of losing ... the popular vote." That's happened precisely once in last 32 years. Please don't bet the kids' lunch money on it happening this year.
Well, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin, since 1992:
– 50% of the time neither party won both
– 38% of the time a Democrat won both
– 12% of the time a Republican won both
So I think the proper way to frame this is that it is unusual for a party to win both. Especially since even the winning margins were very narrow.
There have been 8 elections counting 1992, 7 starting from 1996. The Dems have won both 5 (or 4, not counting 1992), the GOP once and neither twice.
*
Using your numbers without checking them, it happens half the time... so say it's "unusual" would not seem to be correct.
If Donald Trump should lose the election and then engage in a reprise of his November 2020 -- January 2021 shenanigans, keep in mind that he is on bond in a federal criminal prosecution. The number one condition of release is that "The defendant must not violate federal, state or local law while on release." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.13.0_7.pdf
A federal criminal defendant who has violated a condition of his release is subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a). If the government seeks revocation and the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a federal, state, or local crime while on release and that there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community or that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release, the court can revoke bond and order the defendant detained pending trial.
If there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed a Federal, State, or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. § 3148(b).
And what do you think would happen next?!?
Hint: What happened in 1970 after the Kent State shootings?
This would be 10,000 times worse.
It would also be stupid...
What do I think would happen next?
I think a considerable number of keyboard warriors would blow their gaskets.
I'm thinking general strike.
We've only got 3 days worth of food in the stores.
A general strike?
Sounds like union talk.
Ed the Commie, never woulda thunk it.
General strikes don't spring to life spontaneously.
How do you surmise that one would come about, Dr. Ed?
Guardrails?
The guardrails that are needed are on Jan.6 , 2025., around the US Capitol. Literally miles of portable chain link fence, in at least two concentric rings. Plenty of fair warning signs at the outer fence, so that anyone reaching the inner fence has no excuse and is already arrestable.
Lesser but similar measures on Dec. 17, 2024 around state capitols in Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
I'd settle for letting the Proud Boys et al. know that the National Guard will be there, and will be issued live ammo.
Which worked quite well at Kent State....
As I recall, you love the Kent State Massacre for teaching those students a lesson in humility.
Anyone familiar with gun safety knows that you should never put a flower in a rifle barrel. What where those hippie chicks thinking?
ducksalad — Good suggestions. To which I would add a public warning that anyone attempting to breach perimeters you call for around the Capitol, the White House, or any state governor's residence, or any state capitol, will meet the same kind of defensive force that the Secret Service would use to defend the White House against a forced entry.
Then I would go farther. About a week before election day, I think President Biden should announce that there will be a state of emergency nationwide, beginning the day prior to Election Day, and extending for as long thereafter as it takes to get a vote count certified by Congress, and to complete a peaceful transition of power. Anyone arrested carrying any kind of weapon—down to sticks and cobblestones—inside those political perimeters you mention—should expect to be held without bail until the state of emergency ends.
There is also a danger that D supporters of Harris could become violent, either in anticipation, or in reaction to MAGA violence. Biden should explicitly warn Democrats as well as MAGAs.
If that strikes anyone as extreme, good. Trump and his minions have taken threats of subterfuge, disruption, and violence so far that grave measures are fully justified. They must apply even-handedly. They should not come by surprise.
Let the nation see what a serious pro-institutionalist defense looks like, and reflect upon it. It ought to insure an orderly Election Day, and a peaceful transfer of power. I doubt anything less can be relied upon to accomplish that.
lathropistan has 1 inhabitant, for good reason.
Commenter_XY — Given your commentary, I suppose I ought to consider whether you are paid MAGA, instead of merely obligate MAGA, or silly MAGA.
Whatever the goad to your stupidities actually is, I think you must have added willful bad faith to fail to notice that every point in my comment above can be found echoed among former high ranking Trump supporters—who are the actual sources of my own conclusions. Those include not only Vice President Pence, but also Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel, multiple former Trump legal advisors, and dozens of America's highest ranking military officers. Seems like if you want to find a senior military officer loyal to Trump, you have only two places to look, among jailbirds, or among officers who have not yet made Trump's acquaintance.
The guy you support so heedlessly—and yet so vociferously—is despised not just by his previous victims, but also among literally hundreds of people who attempted to serve him, and learned the hard way the corrupt character of the guy they had to give up on.
No one as corrupt, damaged, or dangerous as Trump is to be found in the annals of the presidency. That is attested not just by his enemies, but especially by those who know him best. This nation's history features no precedent.
Trump has imposed disloyalty to America on would-be acolytes, as a condition of his personal favor. You embraced that. You are no patriot. What could you have possibly hoped to gain?
Even if there is a riot on Jan. 6, it would only delay the vote in Congress for a couple of hours. That is all it did in 2021.
I'm a Wisconsinland poll worker - have been for quite a while.
TL,DR: At least in the precinct I work at (Madison, WI) starting the count on election day is a non-problem with regard to delivering timely results.
Longer explanation of the process:
1) absentee ballots are collected via various methods (mail returns, drop boxes, handed to the Clerk's office). The ballots are sorted by precinct while staying in the envelopes.
2) on election day, the ballots are delivered (with exhaustive chain'o'custody) to the precinct the voter lives in.
3) absentee ballots are processed via the dead-tree copies of the poll books to make sure no one votes twice.
4) after verification that the voter is in the poll book, envelopes are opened in batches of 3-5 at a time (for anonymity) and feed into the tabulator (a scantron-type device). It's the same tabulator in-person voters in the precinct use.
5) The ballots are "fill in the bubble" type, so the tabulator keeps the physical ballots for recounts. Throughout the day, the count of poll book votes versus tabulated ballots is monitored. I've never worked an election where there are extra ballots, much less anything in a "change an election" amounts.
6) My usual precinct is about 2000 voters total. We process absentees throughout the day; we're always done by 7pm when the polls close (we usually get a courier bag of same-day deliveries later in the afternoon, with a handful of ballots in it).
7) No one wants to stick around feeding ballots into a tabulator for hours and hours. We want to go home and have a beer.
8) Reporting from the tabulator to the City Clerk is electronic for initial results, paper tape in the ballot bag, and ballot bag has 100% preservation of votes in case of recount.
It's a pretty well done system. While perhaps theoretically possible to fake, I don't see practical ways to fake election-changing amounts of ballots. You'd need a lot of people all on the same page - the usual problem of "if 10,000 people faked the moon landing, where's the whistleblowers?"
Think it's a conspiracy? Become a poll worker and do it yourself. Be part of the system, expose the fraud if it exists ... which it doesn't.
Put up, or STFU and STFD.
The poll workers cannot tell if the mail-in ballots are proper, except for checking signatures.
So what’s your theory for “election altering mail-in ballot fraud”?
Every voter can check their ballot status.
If you don’t vote but see your ballot has been voted absentee, file a complaint.
Put up or STFU.
So you are denying that Russians®™ can change the vote totals after the ballots are cast?
Because two-thirds of Democratic voters believed that in 2018 regarding the 2016 election.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
Of course what happened subsequently was that even years after Trump had safely taken power, the corporate media’s top luminaries continuously used the phrase “hacked the election” to describe the purported actions of Russia on behalf of Trump in 2016. Supermajorities of Democratic voters came to believe not just that Russia “interfered” in the election, but directly installed Trump into power by tampering with voting machines. Now, though, journalists who fostered these blinkered beliefs will feign incredulity that their conduct could have contributed to widespread “doubt” as to the “legitimacy” of that election. And they’ll be aghast at any suggestion that this was inevitably going to generate yet another crazed anti-legitimization initiative in 2020.
If you want a theory (I'm not saying it's correct) it could be that they exclusively pick people who haven't voted in the last few elections and thus are very unlikely to notice if someone votes in their name. Who you voted for is supposedly secret (although they put a ballot number by your name in the poll book so I don't quite understand why the election workers wouldn't be able to tell who you voted for if they were so inclined; just find the ballot with that number) but whether you voted is not secret.
Typically as a ballot is counted, the portion with the tracking number is taken off it. Take a close look the next time you vote.
Thanks for description, and thanks for your service. I imagine the pay isn’t enough to be a big draw, it wasn’t the last time I did it, which was almost 45 years ago. Minimum wage IIRC.
What’s your official procedure if someone does try to vote twice? It’s got to happen sometimes just due to Alzheimer’s or people believing stories that the USPS threw away their mail-in ballot.
Thanks for being a poll worker, Zarniwoop. It is an important civic duty.
Scantron is, definitively, the best voting system out there, bar none. It puzzles me why states keep buying those expensive and, yes, eminently hackable, electronic voting machines. Kickbacks?
[duplicate comment deleted]
The Democrats in BLUE Minnesota are already testing their ability to STEAL mail-in ballots. Notice the boxes marked with Red or Blue tags and the open, unattended van.
Crooks must hate Citizen video. Even crooks "just following orders".
THUS is how Democrats will cause a second Civil War.
See this article, with photo, in today's Minnesota Alpha News.
Rats! REASIN offers no "paste' function
Every accusation is a confession. Republicans have claimed without evidence that shadowy billionaires buy elections for Democrats.
And right in front of our eyes a very visible Republican billionaire is breaking a federal statute by buying registrations. Does Elon worry about being prosecuted? If Trump is elected, it will never happen.
"Though maybe some of the other things Musk was doing were of murky legality, this one is clearly illegal. See 52 U.S.C. 10307(c): “Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…” (Emphasis added.)
See also the DOJ Election Crimes Manual at 44: “The bribe may be anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances, and welfare benefits such as food stamps. Garcia, 719 F.2d at 102. However, offering free rides to the polls or providing employees paid leave while they vote are not prohibited. United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir.
1972). Such things are given to make it easier for people to vote, not to induce them to do so. This distinction is important. For an offer or a payment to violate Section 10307(c), it must have been intended to induce or reward the voter for engaging in one or more acts necessary to cast a ballot.… Moreover, payments made for some purpose other than to induce
or reward voting activity, such as remuneration for campaign work, do not violate this statute. See United States v. Canales 744 F.2d 413, 423 (5th Cir. 1984) (upholding conviction because jury justified in inferring that payments were for voting, not campaign work). Similarly, Section 10307(c) does not apply to payments made to signature-gatherers for voter registrations such individuals may obtain. However, such payments become actionable under Section 10307(c) if they are shared with the person being registered.” (Emphases added.)"
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=146397
I mean, the whole idea that signing this petition is in support of the 1st and 2nd Amendment is ludicrous. What the petition will show is the names of people that wanted a free chance to win $1 million.
It also brings to mind a certain comic book movie from 1988. That means that Elon has become a comic book villain for real.
JasonT20 — I note that the law against what Musk is up to seems also to punish the recipients of the cash. I wonder how it would play out if a few of the delighted check recipients got charged with a felony that put them at risk of 5 years in prison. Probably not Musk's fault at all. Biden's, maybe.