Republican Electors in Contested States Meet to Vote for Trump/Pence for President, To Provide Alternate Slate of Electors If the "Official" Slate is Disqualified

In Georgia and Nevada, Republican electors have cast their votes for Trump. Unfortunately, these states will not recognize that vote.

The chairman of the Republican Georgia party explains:

@DavidShafer Because the President’s lawsuit contesting the Georgia election is still pending, the Republican nominees for Presidential Elector met today at noon at the State Capitol today and cast their votes for President and Vice President.

Had we not meet today and cast our votes, the President's pending election contest would have been effectively mooted. Our action today preserves his rights under Georgia law.

A source tells me (if I understood right) that there's a Hail Mary plan -- or prayer, more like it -- to have one Representative and one Senator in the US Congress object to accepting the contested states' electors. The idea is that if they did, somehow, get a Senator to agree to do this, it would force a vote on accepting the electors.

Update: Kallisto tells me a commenter reported that Rand Paul agreed to challenge the electors from the contested states.

Republicans did likewise in Pennsylvania.

I mean, fine, and I support them -- fight until your dying breath -- but obviously Nancy Pelosi's House is not going to vote to reject Biden electors.

Nancy Pelosi's House would vote to accept the electors. I imagine there would be at least ten RINO/liberal Senators eager to vote for Joe Biden and a Return to Swamp Politics and favors for China cash, too.

Mitt Romney declared he voted for Biden, and Ben Sasse obviously did too.

Update: Redbanzai asks about the provision that each state delegation casts one vote for a president if there's an electoral college deadlock.

Well that's right -- but you have to get to the deadlock first. You'd get to the deadlock by disqualifying enough Biden electors so that he does not have the 270 required. Then you'd proceed to the state by state vote in the House.

But first you need to disqualify several states' electors, which I assume requires at least a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

I think people are jumping ahead to the deadlock-breaking vote before establishing first that we have a deadlock that needs breaking.

More: Redbanzai says I'm wrong:

I just looked it up and, according to a US News and World Report article, each house votes separately on which slate of electors to accept from each each contested states. If the Senate and the House do not agree, the Vice President breaks the tie and decides which slate of electors to accept.

Well we'll see. If Redbanzai is right, then we'd strangely have a chance to win in the House -- we have more state delegations. But the Senate is a loss. Like I said, Romney and Sasse defect, definitely, for starters.

If Redbanzai's right, there is a chance, via the VP Tie Breaker.

I'm just having a hard time accepting that it's so (relatively) easy for Congress to step in and declare a winner themselves. But I sure don't know the actual protocols here. I'm not an expert -- unlike Guy P. Benson Ph.D. or Professor Allahpundit, I do not use Twitter enough to gain Twitter's power of Instant Subject Matter Expertise on Whatever Subjects are Trending Today.

But we'll see.

I'm not being defeatist. I just don't want people being too disappointed if (really, when) this plan fails.

Michigan's legislature decided that it would simply bar entry to the electors, so that there can be no alternate slate:

This guy from the Thomas More Center says that the Michigan AG is "threatening" criminal prosecution against any Republican if they "disagree" with her:

In addition, Michigan legislative leaders voted to strip a Republican legislator of his committee assignments for planning, allegedly, to "disrupt" the vote on the electors. By "disrupt," I assume they mean "challenge the electors' legitimacy, as is his right to do."

They're claiming he made a disguised "threat" when he said, correctly, that he could not guarantee there would be no violence if the election was fully stolen.

I'm also not caring about any "threats" because I've been told for six months that threats and violence were just Free Expression and that revolutionary violence was "just an idea."

posted by Ace at 03:51 PM

| Access Comments