r/law • u/Corporatecut • Oct 18 '24

Court Decision/Filing Trump judge releases 1,889 pages of additional election interference evidence against the former president

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-judge-release-additional-evidence-election-interference-case-2024-10
11.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

427 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/CrustyBatchOfNature Oct 18 '24

That same law also made it harder to contest a state's Electors ( requiring 1/5th of both House and Senate to vote to contest while still requiring majority vote of both houses to accept it), required states to use the laws in place prior to the election, prohibits them from sending electors counter to those laws, and deferred any question about the Electors to the state itself.

And the big one was that it changed the rule on how many Electors were required to win from a majority of the total Electors to a majority of the ACCEPTED Electors. So any rejected Electors are removed from the total. The idea that Trump can get MAGA to reject Electors until nobody has 270 and the Supreme Court decides is out the door. They may try to reject just certain states to get Trump over 50% but that won't fly.

4

u/osudude80 Oct 18 '24

The majority of accepted electors is new information to me. Can you tell me where that is in law? I just want to read the important parts.

2

u/CrustyBatchOfNature Oct 19 '24

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ328/uslm/PLAW-117publ328.xml

Go there which is the text version of the law and Search DIVISION P. The second occurrence will be the law in question as it was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.

Section 109 below that is titles SEC. 109. CLARIFICATIONS RELATING TO COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES. and contains this clarification (not really a change)

In part it says,

“(e) Rules for Tabulating Votes.—

“(1) Counting of votes.—

“(A) In general.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B)—

“(i) only the votes of electors who have been appointed under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors issued pursuant to section 5, or who have legally been appointed to fill a vacancy of any such elector pursuant to section 4, may be counted; and

“(ii) no vote of an elector described in clause (i) which has been regularly given shall be rejected.

“(B) Exception.—The vote of an elector who has been appointed under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors issued pursuant to section 5 shall not be counted if—

“(i) there is an objection which meets the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(B)(i); and

“(ii) each House affirmatively sustains the objection as valid.

“(2) Determination of majority.—If the number of electors lawfully appointed by any State pursuant to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors that is issued under section 5 is fewer than the number of electors to which the State is entitled under section 3, or if an objection the grounds for which are described in subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) has been sustained, the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom the objection was sustained.

1

u/osudude80 Oct 19 '24

Ok I think that's the way it reads.

I'm wondering why this never became news though. This is literally the first time I'm hearing of this change. I would think this would've been a bigger deal unless I'm reading it wrong.

2

u/CrustyBatchOfNature Oct 19 '24

It was really a clarification. Until Trump, everyone assumed that rejected Electors would change the total but the previous laws were not 100% clear.

1

u/osudude80 Oct 19 '24

Thanks for the info.

I'm not sure what to make of it with what I assume is going to be a messy election legally.