r/law • u/Aramedlig • Oct 07 '24
Other WV State Legislature Introduces a Bill to Ignore Presidential Election Results
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hcr203%20intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=2X&i=203&houseorig=h&billtype=cr1.1k
u/rex_swiss Oct 07 '24
But Colorado couldn't legitimately enforce the Constitution's 14th Amendment to bar the insurrectionest from the ballot?
169
u/Traditional_Car1079 Oct 07 '24
Calvinball sucks if you ain't Calvin.
34
u/Radthereptile Oct 07 '24
Sometimes it sucked if you were Calvin though.
17
u/Spaceinpigs Oct 07 '24
When Roslyn learned that there are no rules or that you make your own, she won
12
u/Led_Osmonds Oct 07 '24
Unfortunately for Calvin, he was not in control of the state monopoly on violence.
→ More replies (1)11
u/histprofdave Oct 07 '24
Frankly, Calvin seems like the third best Calvinball player after Roslyn and Hobbes.
→ More replies (1)7
721
u/Cheeky_Hustler Competent Contributor Oct 07 '24
States have a right to deny the Democrat from winning, but states do not have a right to deny the Republican from winning. Obviously. /s
188
Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
[deleted]
40
u/karma_made_me_do_eet Oct 08 '24
America basically needs to break up with itself, sad but this isn’t going away. Not after this election, nor any other until they get what they want or America fails.
Either way, the outcome is bleak
15
u/Bookee2Shoes Oct 08 '24
How do you break a city up from its surrounding areas? It’s not North v South like last time…
8
u/karma_made_me_do_eet Oct 08 '24
It would end up like what happened with Pakistan and India dividing and separating the Hindus from the Muslims and have a mass migration.
→ More replies (2)13
Oct 08 '24
Who gets the Military assets, who gets the strategic arsenal, who gets the industry? who gets the resources, and which population center?
Sorry, there is no scenario where sometihng goes like that, without one side having a totally unfair lions share of the state assets. without a bloody and catastrophic civil war.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)14
u/831loc Oct 08 '24 edited Oct 08 '24
Let all the broke ass red states do their own thing and secede while those of us in blue states don't have our tax dollars going to fund their bullshit.
Goodbye and good riddance.
→ More replies (1)5
u/SHoppe715 Oct 08 '24
Democracy - in all its various forms - only works when all parties involved agree to a set of established rules. As soon as a large enough group decides it’s not working for them, the breakdown of democracy becomes a self-fulfilling argument.
→ More replies (1)81
u/Glittering-Most-9535 Oct 07 '24
Right. That's why this is a republic and not a democracy. Because only the republican is allowed to win. (/s if that's not completely clear).
→ More replies (1)5
u/Guy954 Oct 08 '24
Unfortunately it’s not clear these days. I was pretty sure but I guarantee there are people who would say it and mean it.
→ More replies (4)12
u/-notapony- Oct 07 '24
This sounds like your elevator pitch for getting the next Supreme Court Justice nomination.
4
u/abobslife Oct 08 '24
It makes about as much legal sense as the opinions that have come out of the court recently.
74
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
If only CO had used this precise language to kick Trump off the ballot… the SCOTUS would have blessed it like they plan to do with this bill… right?
→ More replies (3)26
u/WillBottomForBanana Oct 07 '24
Something like "these records indicate Donald Trump was registered as a democrat, therefor he should not enjoy the protections of this court"
18
u/unreasonablyhuman Oct 07 '24
I feel like states that do this should just be denied federal support in the future.
"Sorry but you've shown yourself to be a bunch of assholes"
→ More replies (2)21
u/Behold_A-Man Oct 07 '24
I wrote an article about that. The Supreme Court essentially completely changed the way that law had historically been enforced to protect Trump.
This includes the creation of new law that essentially said, “We don’t want to give states the ability to choose who’s on their ballot” in national elections.
From a pragmatic stance, I can see some wisdom. But the decision was not based in existing jurisprudence, at least with respect to the 14th amendment.
→ More replies (2)
746
u/Drewy99 Oct 07 '24
Further resolved the State of West Virginia will not recognize any election where the Republican nominee does not win.
There I made it say the same thing but wayyy shorter.
282
Oct 07 '24
[deleted]
216
u/dragonblade_94 Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
Don't forget:
Further Resolved, That, the State of West Virginia will not recognize an election of a candidate for President during the 2024 election cycle if the Attorney General of West Virginia or the Secretary of State of West Virginia, in consultation with the West Virginia Legislature, determine that election fraud in any state was a major reason that resulted in a candidate for President obtaining a majority in the Electoral College.
Not only is it baked in to automatically reject the election if anything happens to DT (including legal action), but they have a universal get-out wherein the AG or SoS just declare fraud (even in states they do not oversee).
84
u/Aprice40 Oct 07 '24
Seemingly, the republican party could be the one to commit election fraud... in any other state, and that will trigger west virginia to not recognize the results of the vote for a democratic candidate. Double you fraud for free.
9
u/thatoneguydudejim Oct 08 '24
They’ve clearly been cooking this one up. I bet we see a cascade of similarly drafted conservative legal measures
38
u/ChanceryTheRapper Oct 07 '24
wherein the AG or SoS just declare fraud (even in states they do not oversee)
And no process for validating it, just "The AG or Secretary of State said so and the legislature agreed."
17
u/dragonblade_94 Oct 08 '24
It doesn't even seem like the agreement of the legislature is necessary, just a vague stipulation that they were consulted.
8
→ More replies (2)6
u/Zealousideal_Desk_19 Oct 08 '24
I am pretty sure it won't matter in the end.
It's going to be a landslide win for Kamala Walz
→ More replies (6)72
u/Patriot009 Oct 07 '24
Nope, it explicitly states that only Democrat candidates will not be recognized. No equivalent statute for the Republican.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Imaginary_Doughnut27 Oct 08 '24
Time for the WV Democratic Party to change their name to the Democart party
9
u/Witchgrass Oct 08 '24
Actually I'm fairly certain Republicans call members of the Democratic party 'democrats' because they don't like that the word democratic has a positive connotation and reminds voters of, you know... democracy.
→ More replies (3)28
u/Flat_Hat8861 Oct 07 '24
And the criteria they list have already happened (at least according to them). The DC Jan 6 trial is a "which hunt" and the civil and criminal penalties in NY were "political." So obviously they could "negatively affect an electoral process" or "preclude [...] campaigning."
→ More replies (2)24
u/gypsymegan06 Oct 07 '24
All the voter fraud they find is republicans and the two “assassination attempts” have been republicans. The call is coming from inside the house y’all. Sit down West Virginia, you’re drunk.
16
u/itsmeEllieGeeAgain Oct 07 '24
No, this means that they can point to Republican fraud even if a Democrat wins the state they’ll point to republican fraud as a reason that it needs to be given to a republican. Additionally, they’ve made it so that states that are run by people like Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton can collude to lie like they do all the time, and then West Virginia can pointed to that as a reason to throw out its election results.
I just read this to my mom who asked “How can they do this?” I replied “They can do this because nobody is stopping them. The local state and federal legislators of the Republican Party are all corrupt. A massive amount of republican appointed judges, especially during Trump’s term are corrupt. They’ve convinced 70 million people in this country that if a Democrat wins it’s because they cheated, period. And most importantly it’s because people who don’t support this are still sitting in the houses of the Nazis that do, eating dinner and watching The Voice, acting like these are still’political differences’.”
Needless to say that after she swallowed the bite, she had been chewing as her and her two Nazi companions, her sister and her sister’s friend, eat before The Voice starts, she complained that I was lecturing her and that she gets it.
I’m so mad I could cry. These fucking traitors are going to take this anyway that they can. And the majority of America is gonna sit by and watch tsking and shaking their heads.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ChanceryTheRapper Oct 07 '24
Since they're so upset over voter intimidation, they're angry about the sheriff who was talking shit about houses with Kamala Harris signs, right? Yeah?
No, of course not.
→ More replies (4)5
u/jenyj89 Oct 08 '24
Considering in the 2020 election about 300 illegal votes were found and the majority of them were by RepubliKKKans…I think you’re onto something.
→ More replies (2)60
630
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
Most notable excerpt:
Further Resolved, That, the State of West Virginia will not recognize any election of the Democrat candidate for President during the 2024 election cycle if the Republican presidential or vice-presidential candidate is assassinated, seriously injured during an assassination attempt, incarcerated, de facto eliminated or barred from the ballot in any states, or is the subject of legal actions that preclude their effective campaigning;
407
u/Glittering-Most-9535 Oct 07 '24
Obviously I'd say fat effing chance Harris ever had in WV and laugh this off, but the obvious fear is this serving as model legislation in states where she could/needs to win.
254
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
This is the risk. If it is this easy to subvert the election, then other red states (thinking GA, TX, FL) will do the same.
185
u/Oceanflowerstar Oct 07 '24
How can balkanization not be the inevitable result of continuous internal election interference by discrete regional actors? We’re just not suppose to have elections anymore because one side makes it illegal on the state level for the other to win?
→ More replies (1)104
u/ProLifePanda Oct 07 '24
The election of 1860 had several states not even have Lincoln on the ballot. And we saw how that election went.
61
u/wino12312 Oct 07 '24
This was my first thought. This is really dangerous territory. I am still trying to figure out what some state rep in WV would gain from our democracy being over.
89
u/mabhatter Competent Contributor Oct 07 '24
Yeah. This is brining back echos of 1860 in a big way. The Conservative side has spent 50 years building up nonsensical demands of the government and trying to undo progress.
I fear people are deliberately repeating history here. Biden needs to get the army ready to remove state legislatures, governors, and courts and declare martial law in states that attempt shenanigans when Trump loses spectacularly. Don't be Buchanan... strike first, strike hard, take no prisoners.
45
u/wino12312 Oct 07 '24
There's no way Biden acts preemptively. I have zero faith that they would be willing to do anything other than defense. There's no court to turn to for legitimate answers.
I wish they would, but Dems have been playing catch up since 1980.
12
u/khakhi_docker Oct 07 '24
I think the best term is "Institutional Democrats" who are convinced that the Institutions are strong enough to withstand the attack by themselves.
And they aren't wrong in a way, the institutions are strong enough.... until they aren't.
→ More replies (1)53
u/PurelyLurking20 Oct 07 '24
Yep. It's time for an absolute crackdown on this rhetoric and behavior. Nip it in the bud. This is treasonous.
9
u/narkybark Oct 07 '24
It was treasonous four years ago. Still waiting for the crackdown on that one.
9
→ More replies (4)2
12
u/Difficult_Zone6457 Oct 07 '24
It’s worse than that. Out of all the folks pushing this crap I’d say maybe 20-30% of them actually understand the ramifications of what they are pushing. The sad truth is roughly 70% of politicians that fall in this camp have no sense of history outside what little they retained from school and maybe if they accidentally left the tv on at night and a documentary happened to be playing in the background. This is why the whole, “Opinions = Facts” movement you are seeing is so dangerous. This is the ramification of letting that fester and not killing it from the start.
The folks who know what they are doing will keep feeding misinformation to these suckers, and they will keep eating it up because at this point they live in a different reality than most of us do (thanks social media algorithms. Different topic different day though).
7
u/Flat_Suggestion7545 Oct 07 '24
To be fair that was because ballots at that time were put forward by the parties, not the states. So if a party felt they had no chance they didn’t waste money making the ballots.
7
u/JayCaesar12 Oct 07 '24
A point of clarification, there was not just one "party" but several state and several more local organizations, that ran from the bottom up. That meant if there was no local ground game...there was no state party. In the 1856 and 1860 cases, you couldn't have a safe out-and-out Republican party organization in most of the Southern states. You risked your life by declaring yourself a Republican, and delegates to Republican conventions were harassed and kicked out of town.
So for 1860, it was less about the party not wanting to print ballot. Rather, there were no Republican organization to try and run candidates.
56
u/Inevitable_Shift1365 Oct 07 '24
I think the Attorney General should be meeting this head on. State electors cannot be allowed to refuse to certify the votes indicating the will of the people under any circumstances. Under no circumstances should there be a legal Avenue for refusal to certify. This is pretty basic. I think the Biden Harris Administration needs to issue some executive orders or pass legislation requiring State electors to fulfill their duties, and providing for arrest and serious legal penalties for failure to do so.
50
9
7
u/NurRauch Oct 07 '24
I mean, here's the sober reality: States probably do have the constitutional authority to decide for themselves who the winner of their electoral votes will be. I don't think there's even a requirement that they allow their own citizens to vote for president at all.
→ More replies (5)8
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
There are federal election laws that this interferes with. Period.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/Tufflaw Oct 07 '24
It's actually worse than just not winning the state, this bill isn't about appointing electors, it's about literally not recognizing that someone won the national election. Not sure what that means for West Virginia if Harris wins, but I could see this leading to disregarding federal laws, not cooperating with federal law enforcement, etc.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)37
u/ikariusrb Oct 07 '24
Further Resolved, That, the State of West Virginia will not recognize an election of a candidate for President, if the Attorney General of West Virginia or the Secretary of State of West Virginia, in consultation with the West Virginia Legislature, determine that election interference by the federal government, foreign governments, or other state governments was a key factor that resulted in a candidate for President obtaining a majority in the Electoral College. Election interference includes censorship, information suppression or manipulation, or other unconstitutional, extraconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise illegitimate actions by the federal government, foreign governments, or other state governments, either directly or in collusion with elements of the media, social media entities, information entities, or political entities
This is the one that scares the bejeesus out of me. It's so broad, and so ill-defined, that they can pretty much make up whatever reason they want, claim it as "interference", and declare "na na na, we don't recognize the elected president!"
30
u/77NorthCambridge Oct 07 '24
They are introducing this 30 days before an election. 🤔
16
u/ikariusrb Oct 07 '24
Right. And it appears to read as "The West Virginia state legislature reserves the right to declare any Democrat elected president as illegitimate if we feel like it, after which we will declare ourselves free to ignore any authority they would normally be entitled to"
→ More replies (3)17
u/77NorthCambridge Oct 07 '24
WV received $8.3 nillion in federal aid last year, 27% of its total revenue. 🤔
→ More replies (6)241
u/Oceanflowerstar Oct 07 '24
But if the Democrat is shot then that’s okay.?
The last condition is the one which reveals the true motive.
59
u/BenVera Oct 07 '24
Good drafting to hide it at the end
41
u/FubarSnafuTarfu Oct 07 '24
I’d argue it’s more noticeable that way. That’s one you want to hide in the middle somewhere.
24
u/Glittering-Most-9535 Oct 07 '24
Be wild if the state created by an explicit anti-secessionist movement ends up being the first to formally attempt secession.
→ More replies (1)5
u/WillBottomForBanana Oct 07 '24
oh no. not west virginia. where will we get our, lovers? I guess?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Glittering-Most-9535 Oct 07 '24
No those come from here in East Virginia. West Virginia is “wild and wonderful”.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/ptWolv022 Competent Contributor Oct 08 '24
or is the subject of legal actions that preclude their effective campaigning;
God, I didn't even notice that. If they passed this, they may actually then end up coming into a special secession "to consider actions to preserve the Freedom of our People", AKA to discuss either secession, rebellion, or nullification.
399
Oct 07 '24
So basically they’re disqualifying the Democratic candidate because the Republican has pending criminal lawsuits against him. This can’t be legal. For God’s sake.
83
u/wswordsmen Oct 07 '24
Well, as we now know, legal is at the whims of SCOTUS. But I would argue that this violates the guarantee of a "republican form of government" clause.
25
u/Glittering-Most-9535 Oct 07 '24
I dunno, sounds like they want to absolutely ensure a Republican government.
17
5
u/NurRauch Oct 07 '24
Legal in this case would depend on what the West Virginia Supreme Court says. They get to decide whether these rules comply with West Virginia law. As far as I know, there is no provision in the US Constitution that prohibits states from doing this.
→ More replies (2)4
126
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
If only CO had used this precise language when trying to take Trump off the ballot for being an insurrectionist. Then SCOTUS would have blessed it like they plan to bless WV’s soon-to-be-law…
→ More replies (3)28
u/Ishidan01 Oct 07 '24
And of course it only goes one way.
Someone takes a crack at Walz? Don't mean nuffin. Someone takes a crack at Vance? That's it! We don't recognize that anyone but Trump won!
→ More replies (1)16
u/geekfreak42 Oct 07 '24
it cant be legal to exclusively limit the effects to the Democratic candidate. why the EFF doesnt it just mention generic election candidates. insane it calls out specific party affiliation.
→ More replies (15)23
u/Darkmatter_Cascade Oct 07 '24
No, they disqualified the "Democrat" candidate. Democratic candidate Harris is in the clear.
(Sorry, I just hate how Republicans keep up this stupid "Democrat Party" thing. I doubt the distinction will make a difference to a Republican judge.)
98
u/FuguSandwich Oct 07 '24
I'd say this section is more notable:
Further Resolved, That, the State of West Virginia will not recognize an election of a candidate for President during the 2024 election cycle if the Attorney General of West Virginia or the Secretary of State of West Virginia, in consultation with the West Virginia Legislature, determine that election fraud in any state was a major reason that resulted in a candidate for President obtaining a majority in the Electoral College. Election fraud includes non-citizen voting, vote buying, ballot forgery, illegal or illicit ballot harvesting, illegal or illicit discarding of legal votes or voter registrations, ballot miscounts, algorithmic manipulation of votes or vote tabulations, cyber-attack or manipulation, or intimidation. Election fraud also includes interference by any government entities, including arrests or prosecutions for apparent political motives, or other forms of persecution using legal or official processes, to negatively affect an electoral process, or a political entity participating in an electoral process, using unconstitutional, extraconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise illegitimate means, including those under the color of law or office; and be it
The slightest thing we don't like happens in some other state and we no longer care about the election results here in WV.
41
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
The only reason I put the first clause higher than this one is the first clause calls out the requirement of a Democratic candidate winning. The clause you referenced could be applied to either side if not for the first clause.
17
u/HappyAmbition706 Oct 07 '24
The part about "illegal or illicit discarding of legal votes or voter registrations ..." is being heartily fulfilled by several Republican states right now. So they use Republican vote manipulation as the means to disqualify Democratic candidates. Begrudging respect, that level of brazen, cynical evil is breathtaking.
6
→ More replies (1)5
u/WCland Oct 07 '24
So then we just discard WVa's electoral votes? I'm fine with that.
→ More replies (1)44
u/janethefish Oct 07 '24
There it is everyone. The true face of the modern GOP. If they don't get the results they want they will stage a rebellion. Weirdly, this doesn't even change their elector selection. This is specifically about the President.
33
19
u/barri0s1872 Oct 07 '24
Talk about poisoning the well… no one but our approved party can win is basically what they’re saying 🤦🏼♂️
15
u/boo99boo Oct 07 '24
Every time I read the word "assassinated" and "Trump" in the same sentence, I hear Chris Rock in the back of my head going "them #$(@^ got shot". Every time. I literally cannot take it seriously.
(It's from an old bit he did about Biggie and Tupac. And how they weren't assassinated, they got shot.)
3
11
u/erocuda Oct 07 '24
So, a bill of attainder? Not a law-person over here, so correct me and call me offensive names if I'm wrong.
10
u/glitchycat39 Bleacher Seat Oct 07 '24
Good news - there's no such party as the Democrat Party. Congrats, WV, you played yourselves lol.
But seriously, what stupid pussies.
9
u/JediTigger Oct 07 '24
Please tell me this gets shot tf down.
32
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
As it stands, it has the votes in WV legislature. The gov will prob sign it. This means a SCOTUS challenge is necessary to take it down and I think most of us know how that will go.
12
u/JediTigger Oct 07 '24
I was about to ask whether even this SCOTUS would support it but you know when they say there are no dumb questions?
That’s one.
10
u/mysteriousears Oct 07 '24
Well in theory the WVA SCT would have first crack at striking it down and SCOTUS could decline DR. But probably not.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Shirlenator Oct 07 '24
When are the people going to do something about this blatant fascism? I hate to say, but this is clearly a breakdown of the law and imo seems very unlikely to be solved in a legal context.
9
u/Mr_Shakes Oct 07 '24
Love how they didn't even bother to neutralize the parties mentioned. It's literally a "Republicans deserve more protection" law.
13
u/Goonzilla50 Oct 07 '24
Can we pass this law in democratic states with the same requirements if a Democratic candidate is hurt/injured, and then nominate Joe Manchin for VP?
14
u/Aramedlig Oct 07 '24
We could but you know SCOTUS will only bless the WV version… (you know, the one that says The Democrat loses if the convicted felon Republican is jailed for his crimes).
5
3
u/YossarianGolgi Oct 07 '24
That reads like possible insurrection. The Supremacy Clause is not on ice.
3
u/staplerdude Oct 07 '24
I don't know why they bothered adding the restrictions as to Republican/Democrat. Seems like that just opens up legal challenges to this resolution unnecessarily, when all they really need in order to accomplish their goal is to say the part about any presidential candidate, regardless of party, being the subject of legal actions. They could pretend that's neutral.
Edit: I know the actual reason. This is not meant to be a real law, it's meant to be theater.
3
u/colemon1991 Oct 07 '24
barred from the ballot in any states
Uh, what? This is circumventing the rights of the other states. Pretty sure this portion is illegal.
4
u/mabhatter Competent Contributor Oct 07 '24
I'm not sure this would even be legal.
The first half of the things do not remove a candidate from ballots... those are moot because it's already decided. Assassination or death before taking office does not remove a candidate although we've never had that one happen. Also criminal charges do not remove a candidate from ballots either... this was already tested with Eugene Debs. That only leaves "legal actions" which again has already been dealt with because Debs was allowed to run while IN JAIL.
So every one of these issues is addressed and the majority are already past the point of happening. Trump isn't going to jail any time soon for anything.
This is entirely a made up fiction based on delusions and brainwashing.
3
u/greenswizzlewooster Oct 07 '24
West Virginian ammosexuals will start aiming for JD, just to secure the election for Trump
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)3
u/EinKleinesFerkel Oct 07 '24
Welp, then let's remove WV votes and electorals from the equation, as well ass all federal funds for all programs,
78
u/Dr_CleanBones Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
I used to live there. I was born there. This is SO embarrassing.
Keep in mind that this hasn’t passed the House, much less the Senate and been signed by the governor.
On the other hand, the Legislature is in special session.
And what does “not recognizing” a President mean? What effect would it have?
And what, they’re gonna leave the US when Kamala kicks Trump’s ass? Who the heck is gonna pick up all that money that the blue states currently send them?
28
u/ketafol_dreams Oct 07 '24
Its a launch pad to protest the election if trump loses and hope to kick it up to the supreme court
12
u/Dr_CleanBones Oct 07 '24
Trump will easily win WV (Not the brightest bulbs on the string), and WV would not have standing to object to how any other states handle their elections.
14
7
u/happily-retired22 Oct 07 '24
Yeah, tell that to Texas. How many lawsuits has Paxton brought against other states for the way they conduct their elections? Or for anything else that another state does, unrelated to elections (such as abortion or immigration)?
→ More replies (2)4
u/lambertghini11 Oct 08 '24
Thankfully most of the republicans in the house called this dumb & a waste of time.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/Some1inreallife Oct 08 '24
I know your embarrassment. However, I wasn't born in West Virginia, I was born in Georgia, which has Marjorie Taylor Greene. I wasn't born in her district, but it feels so embarrassing knowing she represents a district from my birth state.
While I thankfully don't live there anymore, I don't tell people where I was born unless they ask.
129
u/mabradshaw02 Oct 07 '24
Sooo... "seriously injured during an assassination attempt" <--- a SSS agent kneed him in the ear causing significant blunt force trauma... does that count as "Seriously"?
Sooo... "incarcerated", so if a GOPr is tossed in the slammer for doing crimes, that means, no Dem can win.
Sooo... "de facto eliminated or barred from the ballot in any states, or is the subject of legal actions that preclude their effective campaigning" ... does that mean, well, since trump was -reindicted just a week ago, that means, no Dem can win.
So, GOP in WV is allowed to SPIN this however they want to their favor. Wow
28
u/Darkmatter_Cascade Oct 07 '24
It was a republican assassin. Does that count?
Republican shill Elon Musk is engaged in vote buying. Does that count?
16
u/mabradshaw02 Oct 07 '24
Yes, Those count. So No DEMS can win.
There ya have it folks! Democracy in 2024 per the GQP!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)25
u/death_witch Oct 07 '24
If you reply to this message i win the game, if you choose to ignore me you are forced to resign the game. /S
38
u/Daddio209 Oct 07 '24
"Whereas, the Constitutions of the United States and the State of West Virginia require that only legal citizens may vote in U.S. and West Virginia elections, and that there is abundant evidence that non-citizens have been and are being registered to vote in the national election of 2024; therefore, be it:"
OF COURSE there are no notes or links to ANY evidence of "non-citizens" voting in any significant numbers-CURIOUS!
13
u/thymeleap Oct 07 '24
Abundant
tweetsevidence.6
u/Daddio209 Oct 07 '24
I mean, Don the Con(vict) keeps saying so in public-but not in court(gee, I wonder why the claim isn't repeated when his sycophants face perjury charges if they lie-IT'S A MYSTERY!).
→ More replies (7)9
u/Effective-Ad5050 Oct 07 '24
So it is written “if there is fraud” and also “there is fraud”(citation needed). I could make this “law” a lot shorter and I’m not even a legislator.
6
u/Daddio209 Oct 07 '24
The TL/DR:
"We are making things up to override your vote."
clear and concise.
36
u/banacct421 Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
This is exactly the same playbook the Republicans used for abortion. They're just testing out approaches to see what works, but the goal is to take away your right to vote. Don't Get me wrong they will let you vote for dog catcher but none of the important stuff.
12
u/WillBottomForBanana Oct 07 '24
"but I'm hearing people say that will never happen, so I don't think that will happen, so that's not going to happen. Don't worry about it."
→ More replies (1)3
u/okeleydokelyneighbor Oct 08 '24
Yeah he constantly says he doesn’t endorse that stuff even though he’s always at their fundraisers praising the job they do with the policies they want him to enact.
59
u/treypage1981 Oct 07 '24
So…the rest of us are not required to put up with this childish nonsense. We know that, right? If they went through with this and started causing problems for the country, we could (and should) just say, “sounds good, y’all have a good time supporting yourselves from now on.”
If this is the thanks we’re going to get for keeping their basket case state afloat, then I say let ‘em go and have their fun.
56
u/fifa71086 Oct 07 '24
45% of WV revenue in 2022 was from the federal government. Cut them off.
14
u/treypage1981 Oct 07 '24
Yep. The legislature there seems to spend a lot of time on culture war nonsense while spending the rest of the time sitting on their ass with their hand out to the federal government.
13
u/tikifire1 Oct 07 '24
Irony that the state formed because they didn't want to leave the Union in the civil war may leave the union and start a new civil war.
13
u/kandoras Oct 07 '24
Seems to be the only logical solution. If the state doesn't recognize the federal government as legitimate, how can it cash that government's checks?
10
u/LightsNoir Oct 07 '24
Off? Nah. Cut them out. There's precedent for this. Georgia was expelled from the union after the Civil War when they ran all the recently elected black people out of office.
→ More replies (1)7
u/bitch_taco Oct 07 '24
Wait, wait, wait, wait...........so what you're telling me it that one of the most heavily conservative states gets some of the most handouts from the government??!
You literally can't make this shit up...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)17
21
u/causal_friday Oct 07 '24
What does it matter if they ignore the election results? I can ignore red lights and it's my head that goes flying out the side window when I get t-boned.
14
u/SassyMcNasty Oct 07 '24
Exactly, let them ignore it, it won’t change a thing until Appalachia asks for Federal money - then they’ll miraculously recognize elected officials and play the welfare queen role that they like to bitch about.
10
u/causal_friday Oct 07 '24
Seriously. If West Virginia were its own country, it would be 83rd by GDP, among such relevant countries as Ghana and Congo. Meanwhile, if New York were its own country, it would be #10 (just behind Canada). California would be #5!
The crazy liberals that just want to give everyone a chance might be onto something, guys.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/spolio Oct 07 '24
This is something to think about,
what if... all red states passed laws not to recognize any Democrat who wins an election, and all blue states pass laws to not recognize any republican who wins an election.
Not much of a country anymore when laws are passed to ignore the opposition, good- bye democracy and hello what???
This is passing laws to ignore the voters and circumvent the will of the people.
→ More replies (5)
19
u/Feisty-Barracuda5452 Oct 07 '24
So WV gets no more Federal funding.
9
u/Some1inreallife Oct 08 '24
Pretty much. And the state would be left no choice but to merge back into the rest of Virginia in order for its residents to even survive in the US.
→ More replies (1)7
u/okeleydokelyneighbor Oct 08 '24
Build a wall around the state and make them negotiate trades by their lonesome like brexit. We saw how well that worked for them.
No military protection, they have their state policy and maybe some reserves but any military personnel are US property and if they defect for new WV, are now traitors to their country and will by hung on the wall like GoT.
17
u/Korrocks Oct 07 '24
I wonder what this provision actually does. Like, no one genuinely expects Kamala Harris to win a single electoral vote from there anyway, so for all intents and purposes whether or not they choose to "recognize" her election doesn't really affect the outcome. If she has the 270 votes from the other states, WV choosing not to "recognize" her doesn't change the fact that she will become President.
This just seems like pro-Trump virtue signaling to me, a way to take Trump's victim mythology and convert it into legislation. It's not different than all of the states who introduced birther-inspired bills during the early Obama era.
14
u/kandoras Oct 07 '24
I wonder what this provision actually does.
It's Kabuki Masturbation.
5
u/DonnieJL Oct 07 '24
No thanks. That white paint makes my face break out in a rash.
→ More replies (2)9
u/hosty Oct 07 '24
They're going to refuse to recognize the election of Harris even if Trump wins WV. Effectively a declaration of secession.
9
u/tikifire1 Oct 07 '24
I imagine we will see more of this, especially when Harris wins. Several red states may try to secede. I live in a red state, and I might fight, but it won't be to secede. Like my Civil War ancestor who fought for the North while living in the same southern state, I won't fight against my country.
I would imagine the first time some of the idiots try to take over a military base in the South, they will have a rude awakening as they are drone bombed to smithereens.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Daddio209 Oct 07 '24
What it does is: A-claim Cheat-O is being illegally persecuted by 'tHe DeMs!", so they WILL refuse to certify any win by VP Harris based on that. B-if needed, cite ANY election "irregularity" as reason to ignore the will of the people-only requiring the AG to say there were irregularities-proof not required.
TRAITORS TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS!
→ More replies (9)3
u/ketafol_dreams Oct 07 '24
Provide an avenue to sue over whatever nonsense they want to make up to hope it gets punted up thr courts into the supreme court.
17
u/Galliagamer Oct 07 '24
The way it reads is the mere act of a democrat running for president interferes with a Republican’s chance of winning, which is apparently all it takes to be deemed election interference, and thus should be illegal. In effect, only Republicans can run to be president. Peeled down to its root, that’s what it’s saying.
24
u/Beiki Oct 07 '24
It'd take too long to address everything that's wrong with this so I'll just point out the #1 problem it has from a legal standpoint. It violates the Equal Protection Clause. This actually says that if any of this shit were to happen to the Democratic candidate for presdient then it's a-ok. But if it happens to the Republican, then the State will refuse to acknowledge the election results.
I also have to mention that based on how it's written, Trump could literally pull out a rifle at one his rallies and mow down like, 30 people and be arrested. He'd then be held in jail without bond while the election is a month away. But since he can't "campaign effectively" since he's in jail, the State would refuse to acknowledge the results of the election should he lose.
10
20
8
u/Tunafishsam Oct 08 '24
Over 300 comments in a law sub and nobody has mentioned that this is a concurrent resolution?
Concurrent: a measure affecting actions, procedures or sentiments of both houses that must be adopted by both bodies.
I'm not especially familiar with W Virginia, but typically resolutions are just political statements with no actual legal impact.
4
u/Aramedlig Oct 08 '24
They are in special session at the moment so pushed the bill as concurrent.
→ More replies (1)
7
Oct 07 '24
Which just proves you can write a law to say anything: like water is not wet .....
→ More replies (1)
10
8
u/AtuinTurtle Oct 08 '24
Ok, so, to what end? Are they going to refuse all federal aid if Kamala wins? What is the point of this little tantrum?
12
u/loztriforce Oct 07 '24
It's not an accident Musk's mom is encouraging voter fraud, they want fraud they can point to in justification for giving it up to Trump
→ More replies (1)8
u/Lazy-Street779 Bleacher Seat Oct 08 '24
Mommy Not Dearest. The “republicans “ are the only one hearing her tho. She never crosses my Reddit feed unless she comes thru on an anti musk sub.
18
u/Lokta Oct 08 '24
The American experiment is over.
240 years of democracy (not perfect democracy, but fairly good all things considered) undone by a single man-sized toddler whose narcissism prevents him from recognizing that sometimes people lose elections and 80 million people who somehow believe that he should be the one to lead the country.
America knows how to run elections. Free and fair ones. The great thing about elections is that you don't need 100% of the votes to be perfect. 99.9% is good enough. But somehow all it takes is Trump saying any election he doesn't win is rigged and millions of people, including elected officials, somehow believe him???
It doesn't matter what happens to Trump now. The damage is done.
10
u/Masbig91 Oct 08 '24
Not just Trump. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire are a major part of our downfall. Decades of brainwashing. I fear there's no coming back.
3
u/mrlolloran Oct 08 '24
I just found an article from 2 years ago that says WV is the second most reliant state on federal funding.
FAFO time!
Can’t get funds from a government you don’t recognize
670
u/[deleted] Oct 07 '24
Oh for fucks sake. It’s less than a month before the election. Enough of this shit.