- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If the Pennsylvania SOS said they weren't counting any white votes from the election?
Posted on 1/10/21 at 2:35 pm to Obtuse1
Posted on 1/10/21 at 2:35 pm to Obtuse1
It's Article II, Section 1:
Here's what I mean when I say it's not clear to me: the text says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". In Pennsylvania, the Legislature passed election laws that were presented to and signed by the Governor. The laws do not dictate everything (for example, the location of polling places, the equipment used, etc.), nor could they. When the law is silent, and the SOS takes some action, 99% of the time it's fine. So it would seem to me that the US Supreme Court would not find a violation of the federal constitution unless the SOS does something that contradicts Pennsylvania law. Otherwise elections would be completely unworkable.
So what did the SOS do that contradicts Pennsylvania law?
quote:
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.
Here's what I mean when I say it's not clear to me: the text says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". In Pennsylvania, the Legislature passed election laws that were presented to and signed by the Governor. The laws do not dictate everything (for example, the location of polling places, the equipment used, etc.), nor could they. When the law is silent, and the SOS takes some action, 99% of the time it's fine. So it would seem to me that the US Supreme Court would not find a violation of the federal constitution unless the SOS does something that contradicts Pennsylvania law. Otherwise elections would be completely unworkable.
So what did the SOS do that contradicts Pennsylvania law?
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 1/10/21 at 3:06 pm to LightHeat
quote:
Here's what I mean when I say it's not clear to me: the text says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".
You are half way to the point I was planning to make. Via the US Constitution the state's legislature is responsible for directing the manner of the election, but no legislatures goes to the point of mandating every granular part of an election. It is essentially delegating portions of the process. The key thing is they have oversight and if the governor, SOS or the election commission do something they don't like they can step in and mandate it be done in a different manner if they don't they are giving tacit approval to the method outlined by another body given part of the responsibility of holding the election. Just like a CEO of a company doesn't mandate every granular process of employees but if they see something they don't like they can change it. Lots of people think only the swing states had non-legislative changes in the election process however this is fairly common even in non-COVID years and very common last year. The governor of Texas extended the early voting unilaterally but no one is complaining about that, the TX legislature was aware of the changes and could have easily mandated the extension not happen, they did not, giving tacit approval and the extension occurred. Outside of an 11th-hour change (that timing would be up for debate), the legislature had an opportunity to step in. The courts are always likely to see this as a laches issue if the legislature had time to act and did not.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News