Certifying the Vote.

[Ranb]

So we have several Congresscritters who say they will object to the certification of the electoral votes by Pence on the 6th. The relevant law is here; https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

Quote:

....and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

So if I understand this, there will be no problem for the GOP to find a Senator and a Representative who will object, but it takes a vote by a majority of Congress to reject the electoral vote or votes? Seeing how a sizable portion of the GOP opposes overturning the electoral vote, I would assume that the objecting members of the GOP are wasting their time?

Ranb

[Skeptic Ginger]

They have multiple motives.

Fundraising
Drunk on the Trump Koolaid
Planning to run for POTUS in 2024
Think it makes them more appealing to their base at home

It will interesting to see what Pence does. It's clear he can't technically or legally proclaim the vote rigged. He made an overture to Trump implying Pence might satisfy Trump.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Just the fact that Democrats control the house means they are wasting their time.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ranb

So we have several Congresscritters who say they will object to the certification of the electoral votes by Pence on the 6th. The relevant law is here; https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

So if I understand this, there will be no problem for the GOP to find a Senator and a Representative who will object, but it takes a vote by a majority of Congress to reject the electoral vote or votes? Seeing how a sizable portion of the GOP opposes overturning the electoral vote, I would assume that the objecting members of the GOP are wasting their time?

Ranb

You understand it. This is a political stunt. And in my opinion a poor one.

For the objection to a State's slate of Electors to be upheld and thus a rejection requires a majority in both the House and the Senate. By all appearances they will get neither. But they can slow the process down and make speeches. In theory this could go on for a week. It depends on how many states they might object to. Figure 2 and a half hours for each state objected to.

[DevilsAdvocate]

It has been reported that the Trump electors from some states won by Biden have sent in their own certificates. Under the same law for objection to votes (3 USC 15) the House and Senate would probably have to vote on which certificate to accept. So it may have to go to a vote even if a Representative and Senator do not object.

The law is horribly written. Most of it is one big run-on sentence. It is difficult to untangle and interpret what it actually says.

The law says that if there is more than one certificate purporting to be a return from a state, then only the votes from the certificate issued according to law are to be counted. But it doesn't say who determines that or how.

It then goes on to say that if there is a question about which State authority can lawfully appoint electors, then it goes to the House and Senate. If the two Houses disagree, then the votes on the certificate issued by the executive of the State (Governor) are counted.

This gets a bit more complicated because the certificate of ascertainment of electors is sent to the Archivist. The Archivist sends copies to both Houses. But the elector's certificate of votes is sent to the President of the Senate, although copies are also sent to the Archivist.

Presumably Pence will have to open the fake certificates because the law says he must open "all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes". I don't think there is any legal means to weed those out before hand.

But then what? Do the tellers decide that one of those certificates is lawfully are read that one, or does Pence declare one of them to be lawful, or does Pence say it has to go to a vote? I'm not sure.

This happened in 1960. Nixon initially won Hawaii. The Secretary of State as acting Governor issued a certificate for the Nixon electors. But then there was recount and Kennedy actually won. In a lawsuit the court declared Kennedy the winner. The actual governor issued a certificate for the Kennedy electors under the authority of that court decision. Nixon had lost; the votes from Hawaii didn't matter. Nixon was the Vice President. When Nixon got to the Hawaii votes he entered both certificates into the record. He asked for unanimous consent to accept the the certificate from the actual Governor, which was not objected. But Nixon did specifically say this was not intended to establish a precedent.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I expect the Parliamentarians have been very busy the past few weeks writing up advice for Pence and the House and the Senate on how this should all play out.

But this means that the states with duplicate votes will likely go to a vote anyway and any objections will just be basically redundant.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You understand it. This is a political stunt. And in my opinion a poor one.

For the objection to a State's slate of Electors to be upheld and thus a rejection requires a majority in both the House and the Senate. By all appearances they will get neither. But they can slow the process down and make speeches. In theory this could go on for a week. It depends on how many states they might object to. Figure 2 and a half hours for each state objected to.

Of course, the Democrats could speed things considerably by simply not having anything to say. Each time its their five-minute turn to speak, they should simply pass on making any comment - let the Repugnicans do all the talking and ranting - don't give their claims the oxygen they need by even addressing them at all, give them nowhere to go - nothing to argue against. Then, at the end, after the Trumpers have all finished making fools of themselves, Chuck Schumer (Senate) and Steny Hoyer? (House) are the only Dems to speak, and even then not even taking up more than a few minutes to say something like this.....

"I have been authorised by my House/Senate colleagues to speak on their behalf. We all agree that there is no evidence to support the claims of fraud in the case of the {State name} election, and that such claims have no basis in fact"

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Of course, the Democrats could speed things considerably by simply not having anything to say. Each time its their five-minute turn to speak, they should simply pass on making any comment - let the Repugnicans do all the talking and ranting - don't give their claims the oxygen they need by even addressing them at all, give them nowhere to go - nothing to argue against. Then, at the end, after the Trumpers have all finished making fools of themselves, Chuck Schumer (Senate) and Steny Hoyer? (House) are the only Dems to speak, and even then not even taking up more than a few minutes to say something like this.....

"I have been authorised by my House/Senate colleagues to speak on their behalf. We all agree that there is no evidence to support the claims of fraud in the case of the {State name} election, and that such claims have no basis in fact"

That isn't how is works. The time isn't divided between parties. Anybody who want to speak can do so for up to five minutes until the two hours has expired.

There aren't strict rules on the order, but there is are guidelines that are followed in determining the order in which people are allowed to speak. I forget what they are and am too lazy to look them up...something like seniority and alternating between parties.

The the Democrats do not choose to speak, it would be two hours of Republicans ranting about how the election was rigged and stolen.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

That isn't how is works. The time isn't divided between parties. Anybody who want to speak can do so for up to five minutes until the two hours has expired.

You said its not how it works, but then you said that it is

The Dems not have to speak right? They should just let the GOPs speak, then when the GOPs have all had their five minutes, the House Leader and the Senate Minory Leader make their dismissive statement at the end

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

[If?] the Democrats do not choose to speak, it would be two hours of Republicans ranting about how the election was rigged and stolen.

Good.. it will make them look like fools.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You said its not how it works, but then you said that it is

The Dems not have to speak right? They should just let the GOPs speak, then when the GOPs have all had their five minutes, the House Leader and the Senate Minory Leader make their dismissive statement at the end

That isn't going to speed anything up.

Democrats are not going to give Republicans a two-hour soapbox to spew propaganda unopposed. Nor should they. They should speak to defend against the objections and put on the record that the claims of widespread election fraud are false and have been proven to be false. And that the use of this type of objection is a dangerous attempt to subvert democracy. I expect even some Republicans will speak condemning the the objections.

This isn't a game.

[jnelso99]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Good.. it will make them look like fools.

To whom, and why does that matter? Anybody who is for whatever the Republicans do will still be for it, and anybody who is against it will still be against it.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

The law says that if there is more than one certificate purporting to be a return from a state, then only the votes from the certificate issued according to law are to be counted. But it doesn't say who determines that or how.

It then goes on to say that if there is a question about which State authority can lawfully appoint electors, then it goes to the House and Senate. If the two Houses disagree, then the votes on the certificate issued by the executive of the State (Governor) are counted.

I'm happy to submit many certificates all purporting to be true. Purporting just means stated to be true? I can state lots of things.

What prevents this from having to open thousands in the future?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

Democrats are not going to give Republicans a two-hour soapbox to spew propaganda unopposed. Nor should they. They should speak to defend against the objections and put on the record that the claims of widespread election fraud are false and have been proven to be false.

Just wondering... When they give their little talks... Do democrats have to stay on topic (basically just repeating "no fraud, this harms democracy" over and over)? Or can they talk about anything?

What they could do (if allowed) is use their alloted time to attack trump and the republicans. Remind people that they are trying to steal the election on behalf of a man who bankrupted a casino and suggested injecting bleach to cure covid. Or after gym Jordan speaks, remind everyone about the assault allegations. Or after Nunes speaks talk about him trying to sue a cow.

Just think... It's nationally televised, it will probably have a huge audience, and the republicans won't have a chance to respond (not without deviating from their "election fraud") script. And it might do more damage to the republicans than yet another "no fraud, you are harming democracy" speech.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

That isn't going to speed anything up.

Democrats are not going to give Republicans a two-hour soapbox to spew propaganda unopposed. Nor should they. They should speak to defend against the objections and put on the record that the claims of widespread election fraud are false and have been proven to be false. And that the use of this type of objection is a dangerous attempt to subvert democracy. I expect even some Republicans will speak condemning the the objections.

This isn't a game.

I think the idea that bad ideas must always be dignified with a direct rebuttal tends to give them more airtime and gravitas than they deserve.

It's part of why Trump nonsense has gotten so much airtime (but not the only reason). It's part of the reason ******** alt-right demonstrations always get counterprotestors and a good amount of the time that escalates to violence.

Our attention isn't so goldfishlike that every wrong utterance NEEDS to be immediately addressed in the same venue. People who would take the ******** seriously at this point after two months of public shouting about it through every medium, are probably not going to be set straight by a rebuttle on c-span anyway.

[Mader Levap]

Silence often is read as agreement or permission.

Those that argue someone should not address someone's else in(s)ane rants are fools.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

Silence often is read as agreement or permission.

Context dependent.

Anyone who thinks democrats agree with these claims of fraud because they choose not to dignify them is probably not watching c-span.

I think much of this forum is imbued with a useless compulsion to address bad ideas.
If you pass someone on a street corner in a tinfoil hat ranting about the end of the world, you don't need to stay there for hours tirelessly rebutting every argument.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I think the idea that bad ideas must always be dignified with a direct rebuttal tends to give them more airtime and gravitas than they deserve.

It's part of why Trump nonsense has gotten so much airtime (but not the only reason). It's part of the reason ******** alt-right demonstrations always get counterprotestors and a good amount of the time that escalates to violence.

Our attention isn't so goldfishlike that every wrong utterance NEEDS to be immediately addressed in the same venue. People who would take the ******** seriously at this point after two months of public shouting about it through every medium, are probably not going to be set straight by a rebuttle on c-span anyway.

100%.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Context dependent.

Anyone who thinks democrats agree with these claims of fraud because they choose not to dignify them is probably not watching c-span.

I think much of this forum is imbued with a useless compulsion to address bad ideas.
If you pass someone on a street corner in a tinfoil hat ranting about the end of the world, you don't need to stay there for hours tirelessly rebutting every argument.

Agree. Pointing and laughing as you walk by will be a far more effective response, and take far less time.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

It has been reported that the Trump electors from some states won by Biden have sent in their own certificates. Under the same law for objection to votes (3 USC 15) the House and Senate would probably have to vote on which certificate to accept. So it may have to go to a vote even if a Representative and Senator do not object.

The law is horribly written. Most of it is one big run-on sentence. It is difficult to untangle and interpret what it actually says.

The law says that if there is more than one certificate purporting to be a return from a state, then only the votes from the certificate issued according to law are to be counted. But it doesn't say who determines that or how.

It then goes on to say that if there is a question about which State authority can lawfully appoint electors, then it goes to the House and Senate. If the two Houses disagree, then the votes on the certificate issued by the executive of the State (Governor) are counted.

This gets a bit more complicated because the certificate of ascertainment of electors is sent to the Archivist. The Archivist sends copies to both Houses. But the elector's certificate of votes is sent to the President of the Senate, although copies are also sent to the Archivist.

Presumably Pence will have to open the fake certificates because the law says he must open "all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes". I don't think there is any legal means to weed those out before hand.

But then what? Do the tellers decide that one of those certificates is lawfully are read that one, or does Pence declare one of them to be lawful, or does Pence say it has to go to a vote? I'm not sure.

This happened in 1960. Nixon initially won Hawaii. The Secretary of State as acting Governor issued a certificate for the Nixon electors. But then there was recount and Kennedy actually won. In a lawsuit the court declared Kennedy the winner. The actual governor issued a certificate for the Kennedy electors under the authority of that court decision. Nixon had lost; the votes from Hawaii didn't matter. Nixon was the Vice President. When Nixon got to the Hawaii votes he entered both certificates into the record. He asked for unanimous consent to accept the the certificate from the actual Governor, which was not objected. But Nixon did specifically say this was not intended to establish a precedent.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I expect the Parliamentarians have been very busy the past few weeks writing up advice for Pence and the House and the Senate on how this should all play out.

But this means that the states with duplicate votes will likely go to a vote anyway and any objections will just be basically redundant.

No states have sent two sets of electors this year.

There are non-electors who have sent their votes to....someone, but that is not from the states. Their claims that their votes were approved by the state legislatures is nonsense, because the state legislatures have not been in session since the election, and therefore have had no opportunity to approve alternate electors, even if they wanted to.

There is only one set of electors for each state. The votes are 306 - 232 in favor of Biden.

[Tommok]

So, since we're looking at bad-faith-scenarios left and right, let's just assume that for some reason one party has majorities in both chambers, and the presidential candidate from the other party wins the presidency.

Would it then be within the authority of Congress to just reject the electoral votes for the winning candidate and install their guy instead?

The arguments I'm hearing go along the lines of "don't worry about such an atrocity, after all the Democrats control the House (and there are some Republican Senators with some leftovers of a spine as well)". This doesn't really convince me that this process isn't ripe for blatant abuse at some other time.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Tommok

So, since we're looking at bad-faith-scenarios left and right, let's just assume that for some reason one party has majorities in both chambers, and the presidential candidate from the other party wins the presidency.

Would it then be within the authority of Congress to just reject the electoral votes for the winning candidate and install their guy instead?

The arguments I'm hearing go along the lines of "don't worry about such an atrocity, after all the Democrats control the House (and there are some Republican Senators with some leftovers of a spine as well)". This doesn't really convince me that this process isn't ripe for blatant abuse at some other time.

They can do that.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Tommok

So, since we're looking at bad-faith-scenarios left and right, let's just assume that for some reason one party has majorities in both chambers, and the presidential candidate from the other party wins the presidency.

Would it then be within the authority of Congress to just reject the electoral votes for the winning candidate and install their guy instead?

The arguments I'm hearing go along the lines of "don't worry about such an atrocity, after all the Democrats control the House (and there are some Republican Senators with some leftovers of a spine as well)". This doesn't really convince me that this process isn't ripe for blatant abuse at some other time.

Yep

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

That isn't going to speed anything up.

Democrats are not going to give Republicans a two-hour soapbox to spew propaganda unopposed. Nor should they. They should speak to defend against the objections and put on the record that the claims of widespread election fraud are false and have been proven to be false. And that the use of this type of objection is a dangerous attempt to subvert democracy. I expect even some Republicans will speak condemning the the objections.

This isn't a game.

Also, these are politicians. Many who live for this kind of limelight. I doubt many are going to pass on the opportunity. The speeches are likely to be separated fairly equally between Democrats and Republicans. But the only a quarter of the GOP Senators are supporting the objection. That means 88 percent of the speeches in the Senate will be for accepting the Biden votes. In the House it will be more like 66 percent. Either way, at the end of the debate session, both Houses will vote to accept or reject the votes.

[Tommok]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

They can do that.

Could this be challenged?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

Silence often is read as agreement or permission.

Those that argue someone should not address someone's else in(s)ane rants are fools.

The Democrats might have an option of walking out, letting the idiots speak for two hours, walking back in and moving on.

The other option which I'm not sure is viable is to make the meeting private so the Republicans have no audience.

A third option so they keep half of the 2 hours is to talk about coups and dictatorships around the world and in history. For example, news of how Maduro took control of Venezuela after Chavez would be a good topic. Or they could talk about both Chavez and Maduro.

[Trebuchet]

Quote:

Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the Senate president pro tempore, says he and not Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the certification of Electoral College votes, since "we don't expect him to be there."

And he hasn't made his mind up.

Or maybe not!

[BobTheCoward]

So the two hour debate is in separate chambers. What does cspan show? Do the republicans just speak at the same time? One side probably can't delay one hour waiting on the other chamber.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

So the two hour debate is in separate chambers. What does cspan show? Do the republicans just speak at the same time? One side probably can't delay one hour waiting on the other chamber.

I would assume there are more than one C-Span feeds, or an option to setup more should there be a need.

[portlandatheist]

I see this more as giving a middle finger to democracy than as a stunt

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

And he hasn't made his mind up.

Or maybe not!

That's bloody weird. Sounds like they are helping Pence avoid Trump's ire. ... Or not.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by plague311

I would assume there are more than one C-Span feeds, or an option to setup more should there be a need.

There are three and they usually cover the Senate and House on separate channels.

Also you can live stream the coverage as well.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There are three and they usually cover the Senate and House on separate channels.

Also you can live stream the coverage as well.

But what do they do for the main channel? Pick who they think is the most important speaker?

Or do republicans try some trick to have only one at a time?

Or do any republicans come out of this with hurt feelings?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But what do they do for the main channel? Pick who they think is the most important speaker?

Or do republicans try some trick to have only one at a time?

Or do any republicans come out of this with hurt feelings?

Off-topic, Bob. Drop it. It makes no difference since it's ratings mean nothing.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by plague311

Off-topic, Bob. Drop it. It makes no difference since it's ratings mean nothing.

If this is a political stunt, I have questions about the mechanics of it.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But what do they do for the main channel? Pick who they think is the most important speaker?

Or do republicans try some trick to have only one at a time?

Or do any republicans come out of this with hurt feelings?

Maybe C-SPAN can livestream the counting of votes in Fulton County.

[alfaniner]

How's Trump going to command the news cycle tomorrow (or whenever the debates get done) when VP Pence announces PE Biden as the new President? A simple Tweet -- "PENCE! YOU'RE FIRED!"

(I don't even know if he can fire Pence, but one can be sure he's looking into it.)

(eta -- He can't. But that won't stop him from trying.)

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Tommok

So, since we're looking at bad-faith-scenarios left and right, let's just assume that for some reason one party has majorities in both chambers, and the presidential candidate from the other party wins the presidency.

Would it then be within the authority of Congress to just reject the electoral votes for the winning candidate and install their guy instead?

The arguments I'm hearing go along the lines of "don't worry about such an atrocity, after all the Democrats control the House (and there are some Republican Senators with some leftovers of a spine as well)". This doesn't really convince me that this process isn't ripe for blatant abuse at some other time.

If the same party controls the white house and both houses of congress, it doesn't really matter what's technically in their legal authority. Trump and his circle have done a great number of illegal things. The fact that he lacked the legal authority to do them didn't matter because there was no power to hold him accountable.

There is no difference between a party with a monopoly on federal power negating the will of the people legally or illegally. Who's going to stop them if they don't respect the rule of law? The supreme court? They have no enforcement capacity.

Whether the authority is technically legal or not, there's really just the one check on the federal government if they were to try such a thing, the threat of violent removal from power by citizens.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm happy to submit many certificates all purporting to be true. Purporting just means stated to be true? I can state lots of things.

What prevents this from having to open thousands in the future?

That is a question that does not have a specific answer. It has never happened and it appears Congress never contemplated it happening.

If a certificate of votes does not have a corresponding certificate of ascertainment of elector received from the Archivist, the President of the Senate may declare it to not actually be a purported certificate. Otherwise, it looks like they would all have to be opened.

If that were to occur, Congress would probably know about it in December and would likely take action to change the law to deal with it or establish special rules to deal with it when the joint resolution providing for the counting of vote is approved.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Just wondering... When they give their little talks... Do democrats have to stay on topic (basically just repeating "no fraud, this harms democracy" over and over)? Or can they talk about anything?

I'm not sure about the Senate, but I think there are House administration rules that say speeches on the floor have to be on topic.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

What they could do (if allowed) is use their alloted time to attack trump and the republicans. Remind people that they are trying to steal the election on behalf of a man who bankrupted a casino and suggested injecting bleach to cure covid. Or after gym Jordan speaks, remind everyone about the assault allegations. Or after Nunes speaks talk about him trying to sue a cow.

Under Senate Rule 19 "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."

That law is a result of a two Senators disparaging each other and accusing each other of having unscrupulous reasons for supporting certain bills. In 1902 a literal fistfight broke out between "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman and John McLaurin that erupted into a brawl.

This became an issue in 2017 during the Senate confirmation hearings for Jeff Sessions's nomination for Attorney General. Sessions was a sitting Senator. Part of a confirmation hearing is basically to call the person's character into question. Democrats wants raise issues about Sessions's racism. Republicans said that would break this Senate rule. Sessions had been denied confirmation to become a federal judge in the 1980s because of his racist comments. Warren attempted to read from the Senate record for that previous hearing that included the issues of racism. McConnell shut her down with his famous "Nevertheless, she persisted" comment. The Senate ethics committee reviewed the issue and allowed Warren to read part, but not all, of the record.

I don't think the House has exactly the same thing, but I think they have similar sorts of rules where this would not be allowed.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

Quote:

Just wondering... When they give their little talks... Do democrats have to stay on topic (basically just repeating "no fraud, this harms democracy" over and over)? Or can they talk about anything?

I'm not sure about the Senate, but I think there are House administration rules that say speeches on the floor have to be on topic.

A shame. Would have been fun to see otherwise.

Quote:

Quote:

What they could do (if allowed) is use their alloted time to attack trump and the republicans. Remind people that they are trying to steal the election on behalf of a man who bankrupted a casino and suggested injecting bleach to cure covid. Or after gym Jordan speaks, remind everyone about the assault allegations. Or after Nunes speaks talk about him trying to sue a cow.

Under Senate Rule 19 "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."

Assuming that that is an exact quote of the rule...

In that case, they could have gotten creative... House democrats could point out the bad acts of the senate republicans, senate democrats could point out the bad acts of the house republicans.

And of course since Trump isn't a member of congress, he'd be fair game for everyone.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

No states have sent two sets of electors this year.

There are non-electors who have sent their votes to....someone, but that is not from the states. Their claims that their votes were approved by the state legislatures is nonsense, because the state legislatures have not been in session since the election, and therefore have had no opportunity to approve alternate electors, even if they wanted to.

There is only one set of electors for each state. The votes are 306 - 232 in favor of Biden.

the law requires that "Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A"

I don't see anything allowing for fake certificates to be weeded out before this point. I'm not sure how this is going to actually play out. Pence may put both certificates into the record and call for a vote. Or he may declare only one to be legitimate.

Pence may hand both to the teller and then the teller says something like, "Mr. President, there are two certificates purporting to be of the electoral vote of the State of Arizona. The first does not have attached a certificate of ascertainment issued by the Governor of Arizona and does not seem to be regular in form or authentic. The second has attached a certificate of ascertainment issued by the Governor of Arizona and seems to be regular in form or authentic, and reads as follows..."

We'll have to see how they decide to handle the Parliamentary procedures.

In any event, if it goes to a vote the real certificate will be accepted. The the House and Senate do not agree, the law says they count the votes on the certificate sign and sealed by the Governor anyway.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Ranb

So we have several Congresscritters who say they will object to the certification of the electoral votes by Pence on the 6th. The relevant law is here; https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim



So if I understand this, there will be no problem for the GOP to find a Senator and a Representative who will object, but it takes a vote by a majority of Congress to reject the electoral vote or votes? Seeing how a sizable portion of the GOP opposes overturning the electoral vote, I would assume that the objecting members of the GOP are wasting their time?

Ranb

How long will this go on? I've almost run out of popcorn.

<fx drums fingers>