So, Where in the Constitution Does it Allow Governors to use Pandemic Emergency Powers to Change Election Law?

[JimBowie1958]

I am totally serious, but the Constitution says the state legislatures change the election laws, not the governors.

In GA, AZ, WI and MI these mail-in laws were changed by the governors, and in PA they have a Constitutional criteria specifying how mail-in votes are to be counted, and they passed only a law to by-pass those Constitutional requirements.

Shouldnt that require a Constitutional Amendment to change it?

I have the feeling that these states have unConstitutionally changed their mail-in voting requirements, and SCOTUS should correct it.

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds like an "anti-Trump" factor contributed to the outcome.

 

[ReinyDays]

Which state? ... they all have different constitutions ...

What you'll find in the laws of many of these states, is that in an emergency, the governor is granted extensive powers to deal with the emergency ... our legislature meets for a few months every other year ... they're not due to meet again for another four months ... thus laws granting what is normally legislative power into the hands of the governor ...

One thing the governor can't prohibit is the legislature calling an emergency session ... Democrat leadership here threatened to do so if the Governor didn't lighten up ... what powers the legislature hands off to the governor can be taken back anytime ...

It's common in our state for the legislature to just pass off rule making to (say) the DOT ... so that as Federal law changes, then DOT can change their own rules right away to comply ... the legislature need not waste time ...

 

[Skylar]

I am totally serious, but the Constitution says the state legislatures change the election laws, not the governors.

In GA, AZ, WI and MI these mail-in laws were changed by the governors, and in PA they have a Constitutional criteria specifying how mail-in votes are to be counted, and they passed only a law to by-pass those Constitutional requirements.

Shouldnt that require a Constitutional Amendment to change it?

I have the feeling that these states have unConstitutionally changed their mail-in voting requirements, and SCOTUS should correct it.

If you're looking in the constitution for the permission of a State to do something, you're misunderstanding what the constitution is.

Its an exhaustive list of federal powers. Not an exhaustive list of State powers. As the 10th amendment makes really clear.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I am totally serious, but the Constitution says the state legislatures change the election laws, not the governors.

In GA, AZ, WI and MI these mail-in laws were changed by the governors, and in PA they have a Constitutional criteria specifying how mail-in votes are to be counted, and they passed only a law to by-pass those Constitutional requirements.

Shouldnt that require a Constitutional Amendment to change it?

I have the feeling that these states have unConstitutionally changed their mail-in voting requirements, and SCOTUS should correct it.

they cant.

 

[Thevolunteerwino]

I am beginning to think in an emegency the people ought to decide if at all possible

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am totally serious, but the Constitution says the state legislatures change the election laws, not the governors.

In GA, AZ, WI and MI these mail-in laws were changed by the governors, and in PA they have a Constitutional criteria specifying how mail-in votes are to be counted, and they passed only a law to by-pass those Constitutional requirements.

Shouldnt that require a Constitutional Amendment to change it?

I have the feeling that these states have unConstitutionally changed their mail-in voting requirements, and SCOTUS should correct it.

That is a state issue, and not one the SCOTUS would entertain.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am beginning to think in an emegency the people ought to decide if at all possible

Nope. That's pure democracy and results in the tyranny of the majority.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am totally serious, but the Constitution says the state legislatures change the election laws, not the governors.

In GA, AZ, WI and MI these mail-in laws were changed by the governors, and in PA they have a Constitutional criteria specifying how mail-in votes are to be counted, and they passed only a law to by-pass those Constitutional requirements.

Shouldnt that require a Constitutional Amendment to change it?

I have the feeling that these states have unConstitutionally changed their mail-in voting requirements, and SCOTUS should correct it.

Like you said, more likely takes a Constitutional Convention and or Amendment.

The national elections being managed per state laws crosses over between rights of individuals /the people as voters, the rights of states, and federal policies affecting both states and people nationwide.

Courts refused to hear these cases kicked back to states.

This being a policy area connecting all three levels: rights of the people and states mixed with national level govt,
this can better be addressed by national Convention of people by states and party.

 

[ReinyDays]

One thing that's not taken into consideration here is that state legislatures are allowed to assign "rule making" to administrative staff ... among many other areas of governance is how we proceed with elections during a state of emergency ... quite literally there's a state law that says the Governor can shut down schools and businesses during a health crisis ...

If the State Legislatures don't like what the Governor does with this power, they can meet and change the law ... indeed several States are doing this right now ... with trial-and-error methodology, we should expect many errors ...

 

[emilynghiem]

One thing that's not taken into consideration here is that state legislatures are allowed to assign "rule making" to administrative staff ... among many other areas of governance is how we proceed with elections during a state of emergency ... quite literally there's a state law that says the Governor can shut down schools and businesses during a health crisis ...

If the State Legislatures don't like what the Governor does with this power, they can meet and change the law ... indeed several States are doing this right now ... with trial-and-error methodology, we should expect many errors ...

The problem is that States weren't just affecting State policies and representation for their citizens.

It affected states and people nationwide.

This was complicated further in that PARTIES were influencing and BIASing state policies on a NATIONAL level.

Courts aren't equipped to handle those issues.

We would need either popular representation on a NATIONAL level to address individual voting, or some mechanism to address PARTIES.

 

[ReinyDays]

One thing that's not taken into consideration here is that state legislatures are allowed to assign "rule making" to administrative staff ... among many other areas of governance is how we proceed with elections during a state of emergency ... quite literally there's a state law that says the Governor can shut down schools and businesses during a health crisis ...

If the State Legislatures don't like what the Governor does with this power, they can meet and change the law ... indeed several States are doing this right now ... with trial-and-error methodology, we should expect many errors ...

The problem is that States weren't just affecting State policies and representation for their citizens.

It affected states and people nationwide.

This was complicated further in that PARTIES were influencing and BIASing state policies on a NATIONAL level.

Courts aren't equipped to handle those issues.

We would need either popular representation on a NATIONAL level to address individual voting, or some mechanism to address PARTIES.

[Quotes out-of-order]

We would need either popular representation on a NATIONAL level to address individual voting, or some mechanism to address PARTIES.

We already do, it's called the United States House of Representatives ... where indeed it only takes 8 or 9 States to railroad legislation over the objections of the other 41 or 42 States ... our system of government is designed to prohibit this ... in the US Senate we need 26 States to agree ...

Parties are protected under the 1st Amendment's Peaceful Assembly clause ...

Courts aren't equipped to handle those issues.

Yes, SCOTUS is bound by the Constitution and precedent ... States cannot sue other States over the other's laws ... ever ... no politics involved ... if we want something different, we need to change the Constitution ... good luck with getting 38 States agreeing to turn over legislative authority to Texas ...

<Ron Swanson voice> I'm offended at the notion ... it's bad enough I have to endure the the wickedness vomited forth by my own State Government ... you want me bathing in the excrement of the other 49 State Governments as well? </Ron Swanson voice> ...

 

[emilynghiem]

One thing that's not taken into consideration here is that state legislatures are allowed to assign "rule making" to administrative staff ... among many other areas of governance is how we proceed with elections during a state of emergency ... quite literally there's a state law that says the Governor can shut down schools and businesses during a health crisis ...

If the State Legislatures don't like what the Governor does with this power, they can meet and change the law ... indeed several States are doing this right now ... with trial-and-error methodology, we should expect many errors ...

The problem is that States weren't just affecting State policies and representation for their citizens.

It affected states and people nationwide.

This was complicated further in that PARTIES were influencing and BIASing state policies on a NATIONAL level.

Courts aren't equipped to handle those issues.

We would need either popular representation on a NATIONAL level to address individual voting, or some mechanism to address PARTIES.

[Quotes out-of-order]

We would need either popular representation on a NATIONAL level to address individual voting, or some mechanism to address PARTIES.

We already do, it's called the United States House of Representatives ... where indeed it only takes 8 or 9 States to railroad legislation over the objections of the other 41 or 42 States ... our system of government is designed to prohibit this ... in the US Senate we need 26 States to agree ...

Parties are protected under the 1st Amendment's Peaceful Assembly clause ...

Courts aren't equipped to handle those issues.

Yes, SCOTUS is bound by the Constitution and precedent ... States cannot sue other States over the other's laws ... ever ... no politics involved ... if we want something different, we need to change the Constitution ... good luck with getting 38 States agreeing to turn over legislative authority to Texas ...

<Ron Swanson voice> I'm offended at the notion ... it's bad enough I have to endure the the wickedness vomited forth by my own State Government ... you want me bathing in the excrement of the other 49 State Governments as well? </Ron Swanson voice> ...

1. No this is through Representatives not individuals. Voting in National elections is done by individuals. Voting rights are rights of PEOPLE not by states, not by national reps that have their own rules when they vote.

2. And not by PARTIES.

In previous discussions I have introduced the idea of an independent body, outside govt and in between parties, where people are represented by PARTY. So these issues like two different biases on voting that are SPLIT BY PARTY can be addressed. And find out how to SEPARATE the policies that should be imdividual choice, from state policy, party policy and national policy.

Here there are two or three partisan biased issues causing the clash between left anf right:
1. The left already favors social benefits and policies mandated uniformly on national levels (like right to health care, right to marriage, right to abortion, jobs and education) while the Right does NOT depend on fed govt for this and OPPOSES central govt regulating these choices considered rights of people and states.
This puts more pressure on voters to vote for liberals who DEPEND on govt for their welfare.
So this already creates a PARTISAN bias toward using National elections for LOCAL policies programs and choices (as opposed to national defense and security, interstate commerce and international policies only Federal Govt is used for NOT local or state that can manage the other social programming)

2. Then these same liberals don't believe in conservative models of representing states equally through the Senate and Electoral system, but are using PARTY division to take STATES by majority in order to dominate NATIONALLY. This is deliberately overriding and excluding HALF of each state and HALF of the nation. The Party system is messing up the system of having reps per STATE by making everything a matter of PARTY


3. Then the issue of RACE was politicized by the liberals to make Voting by PARTY more important than actual functions of state and federal govt that should require experience and leadership to govern. NOT based on spiritual beliefs about Race, LGBT and personal matters that are internal and social.

What matters is ability to represent the population NEUTRALLY objectively and inclusively, NOT pushing one Party Belief system or RELIGION over another.

At least Constitutional Conservative beliefs are based on Federal Govt staying OUT of people's beliefs to ensure free exercise of religion.

When Conservatives violate their own limits on Govt, this is corrected by enforcing those Constitutional laws and limits.

Liberals who don't believe in limiting and separating powers of govt, cannot be checked against these laws they don't enforce. So that is why individual beliefs have been pushed by liberals through PARTY to get regulated and mandates by Federal Govt in violation of Conservative, Constitutional and Libertarian beliefs against abuse and dependence on centralized federal officials for collective regulations of RIGHTS that belong to PEOPLE and States, not making these Partisan agenda for NATIONAL elections that are based on Representatives not individual votes.

If you want individual decisions and choices to be made national public policy, then we need individual votes by Direct Democracy not majority to include individual beliefs about health care, abortion, marriage.

Liberals cannot have it both ways.

You CANNOT abuse "Representatives" elected by STATE to make policies on individual choices that INDIVIDUALS have a direct say in. Because this causes PARTIES to try to dominate the majority rule voting.

You CANNOT have PARTIES pushing to.vote in their Political Beliefs, Religion and Biases into Govt because this violates religious freedom, establishes religion or beliefs through govt, discriminates by creed, and excludes people of other beliefs from equal public accommodations in public policy.

 

[candycorn]

I am totally serious, but the Constitution says the state legislatures change the election laws, not the governors.

In GA, AZ, WI and MI these mail-in laws were changed by the governors, and in PA they have a Constitutional criteria specifying how mail-in votes are to be counted, and they passed only a law to by-pass those Constitutional requirements.

Shouldnt that require a Constitutional Amendment to change it?

I have the feeling that these states have unConstitutionally changed their mail-in voting requirements, and SCOTUS should correct it.

Greg Abbott extended early voting on his own.

Trump doesn't get Texas's votes then too right?

Same for North Carolina as I recall.

Florida? Perhaps.

Gov. Greg Abbott extends early voting for November election by six days, starting Oct. 13

The early voting period for the Nov. 3 election will start Oct. 13 instead of Oct. 19.

www.texastribune.org

Receipt Deadline is November 12 for Ballots Postmarked by Election Day

County boards of elections in North Carolina will accept mail-in ballots received by November 12, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, November 3. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday to uphold this deadline.

www.ncsbe.gov

 

[Colin norris]

Where's your evidence they did anything against the constitution?
Maybe it's only how you want it to be.