U.S. Const. Art. 2, Sec. 1, cl. 2 -- the ultimate vote suppression weapon

[Horndog 2228]

I haven't seen this discussed, but I have seen at least one article about it.  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/trump-cancel-election-day-constitution-state-electors-coronavirus.html.  Given Trump's willingness to do literally anything possible to secure re-election and the Republicans party's complete obeisance to him, I see a real possibility that state legislatures controlled by Republicans (see "gerrymandering") could use the pandemic as an excuse to cancel the public vote and choose the presidential electors themselves.

In its entirety, this clause of the Constitution reads: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."  

While all the states have adopted popular vote as the means of selection of the electors, that can be changed.  In the McPherson case in 1892, the Supreme Court said: 

"The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. It recognizes that the people act through their representatives in the legislature, and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object." 

 

That was reiterated in 2000 in Bush v. Gore:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. . . This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution."

 

While the process would vary from state to state, I assume that through some sort of special session a state legislature could adopt emergency bills to grant itself the right to choose the electors for 2020, depriving its citizens of the right to vote.  This would not have to happen on a large scale, just a few crucial states with a Republican governor and legislative majority  -  Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona, Texas.  Am I just paranoid?

 

 

[David Dennison 18941]

It is known.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

Yeah.  They could do that.  But there would be blood.

[Guest Lobo]

Won't be an issue.  He dies of natural causes (that's the report) in late summer (August or September) from Covid-19.  

Now, the shit-show that happens after that when a free-for-all occurs within our own Executive Branch between Pence, other party leaders, et. al. during the second wave of Covid-19 between who should run and if they should attempt to hold an election or go with what the OP outlined.  That's gonna be the real circus. 

But yeah, if Trump halts the election.  I can deal with that so long as two other things happens.

-He continues to heed the advice of the real experts and people of real leadership makeups about Covid-19.  

-Winter/Spring of 2021, Trump offers to take the first trial vaccination live on television and does so in the Rose Garden.  10 days after that live event, whoops.  Apparently it wasn't quite ready yet.  

But seriously, there are already two main reasons why there would be mass hysteria and chaos in this country...who would let him do a third?  We could already face panic and rioting over this pandemic, if money/food/housing shortages begin broadly (and they already in micro-cases)---that's when you really see the shit hit the fan.  Then you're gonna suspend an entire election cycle?  You've given 2/3rds of the country 2 out 3 reasons to riot according to their political leanings.  The Armed Forces wouldn't have much of a choice.  Either they go state by state beating their neighbors and shooting rioters (police forces wouldn't be able to contain the tens of millions that would engage in lawlessness) or they eliminate the problem---POTUS.  There are enough elements within our government that would see that's the least shitty of two really shitty options.  As long as it was framed properly, can't look like some libtard did it.  

Edited April 13, 2020 by Lobo

[jimmyjazz 46006]

Which states have a Republican majority legislature but are considered in play for an electoral swing towards the Democrat nominee (Biden)?

[David Dennison 18941]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah.  They could do that.  But there would be blood.

Also this.

[Brisketexan 105190]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah.  They could do that.  But there would be blood.

And if they do that, and there ISN'T blood, we deserve the fucking we'll get.

[David Dennison 18941]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Which states have a Republican majority legislature but are considered in play for an electoral swing towards the Democrat nominee (Biden)?

Arizona

North Carolina

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Edited April 13, 2020 by David Dennison

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Which states have a Republican majority legislature but are considered in play for an electoral swing towards the Democrat nominee (Biden)?

Minnesota is split 

Alaska is split 

New Mexico is Democrat

Colorado is Democrat 

Nevada is Democrat 

Virginia is Democrat 

Wisconsin is Republican 

Michigan is Republican 

Ohio is Republican 

Louisiana is Republican 

Florida is Republican 

Georgia is Republican 

North Carolina is Republican 

Pennsylvania is Republican 

While I prefer to have Republican state houses lord over me for the most part, this list should terrify every single non-Trumpkin on this planet...of whom I proudly count myself.

 

[wildcat09 29361]

Wisconsin plus a severely damaged postal service is their vote suppression model. They want us to die, not to kill them. 

[JustBecause 112]

21 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Arizona

North Carolina

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Wouldn't any law like that need to be passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor?  If that is the case then NC, MI, PA and WI have dem Governors and I doubt that a law would pass with veto-proof majorities.

[David Dennison 18941]

1 minute ago, JustBecause said:

Wouldn't any law like that need to be passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor?  If that is the case then NC, MI, PA and WI have dem Governors and I doubt that a law would pass with veto-proof majorities.

Yes. 

[Horndog 2228]

12 minutes ago, JustBecause said:

Wouldn't any law like that need to be passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor?  If that is the case then NC, MI, PA and WI have dem Governors and I doubt that a law would pass with veto-proof majorities.

Maybe, maybe not.  The Constitution specifically says that the electors are appointed in the manner as the legislature of each state  may direct.  No mention of vetos, overrides, etc.  If it is left to the courts to decide, any guess how SCOTUS will go?  

[CooterBrown 18022]

Maybe, maybe not.  The Constitution specifically says that the electors are appointed in the manner as the legislature of each state  may direct.  No mention of vetos, overrides, etc.  If it is left to the courts to decide, any guess how SCOTUS will go?  

[burntorangebongos 10750]

56 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Arizona

North Carolina

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

I guess this is where the internet is going to stop working very well so that can't organize protests easily.

[DDD Dad 14346]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah.  They could do that.  But there would be blood.

Well I don't know about that.  But there definitely would be much furrowing of brows and lots of complaints on social media.

[David Dennison 18941]

21 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Maybe, maybe not.  The Constitution specifically says that the electors are appointed in the manner as the legislature of each state  may direct.  No mention of vetos, overrides, etc.  If it is left to the courts to decide, any guess how SCOTUS will go?  

I'm pretty sure legislation still has to be signed by the governor to become law if so required by the state.

[wildcat09 29361]

50 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Maybe, maybe not.  The Constitution specifically says that the electors are appointed in the manner as the legislature of each state  may direct.  No mention of vetos, overrides, etc.  If it is left to the courts to decide, any guess how SCOTUS will go?  

Please tell me this is rhetorical.

[wildcat09 29361]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm pretty sure legislation still has to be signed by the governor to become law if so required by the state.

Eight days ago I bet you were pretty sure that John Roberts wouldn't invent a postmark date requirement out of thin air in order to punish black voters with death by covid, but it happened the next day. Every one of your posts is Charlie Brown sure that this time Lucy will let you kick the football.

[gmr548 16590]

5 hours ago, Horndog said:

Maybe, maybe not.  The Constitution specifically says that the electors are appointed in the manner as the legislature of each state  may direct.  No mention of vetos, overrides, etc.  If it is left to the courts to decide, any guess how SCOTUS will go?  

You'd have to look into what the individual state constitutions/laws say about appointing electors, then.