Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,439
- 2,290
Apparently you missed the scheme.
If they reject the results of the election, that means there no election results, no electors picked, and as if the election never happened.
Their saying that an elector can petition the court for a new election is patently ridiculous, because no court at any level, can order a new presidential election. Bush v Gore 2000 made hat clear. And in the absence of an election, the choice of electors devolves to the state legislature, under Article 2, section 1 of the constitution.
So in slow motion:
Step 1: Reject he election under page 32 of the proposed law.
Step 2: Appoint electors under Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Just to play devils advocate. Say a judge ordered a new election to be held ASAP.
It takes 2 weeks for the results, At least 2 weeks to print up all new ballots, A week to mail out absentee ballot applications / absentee ballots. Three weeks to get absentee ballots back. That's t least two months after election day, which means they missed the December 12th deadline for the electors to meet, and even the January 6th deadline to count the EC ballots. At best they would get election results in time for the inauguration.
I seriously doubt it would take nearly that long. That aside, unless it's written in the bill the election can be overturned by the legislators, it's only assumption on your part that they can. What would happen is they find fault with the ballots, a judge rules the election stands, and the ballots are counted whether they suspect something or not. This is nothing more than the MSM trying to excite people over something that would never happen. As we both know, the MSM is nothing more than an extension of the Democrat party that wants no oversight in elections so they can cheat. The evidence I present is this phony voters rights bill they are proposing which in essence is a federal takeover of all state elections, and opening it up to much more possibilities of fraud.