Quote:
Originally Posted by psyang
Listening to the debate, it sounds like the Republicans were basing their objection on one argument - that PA made changes to their voting laws outside of state legislators, which goes against the constitution. It wasn't about allegations of voter fraud (at least, not directly) or other conspiracy theories, but only about upholding the constitution.
|
That argument was demolished by Judge Brett Ludwig (appointed by Trump) in
Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Quote:
|
The judge said that argument is meritless because the “manner” of appointing presidential electors is already determined to be by popular vote, and by saying only state legislatures can determine a state’s voting rules, the president’s argument “confuses and conflates” appointing presidential electors with basic election administration.
|
Here is a link to the full opinion. It's very well written and easy to follow, even for someone with no legal background whatsoever. The relevant pages about this argument about the Elector's Clause of the Constitution - which seems to have become the main thrust of the non-fraud arguments by conservatives starts on page 9.
It comes down to the fact that the "Manner" in the Constitution is the very basic "how" Electors are chosen: Legislative appointment, general election, trial-by-combat, whatever. Once the legislature passes laws on the
Manner, within those laws they set up structures to execute the
method of the election. This would include things like election commissions, if it's an election is there mail voting, who can decide when and how ballots go out, if it's trial-by-combat on which white ox shall the sharpness of the blade be tested, that kind of thing.
The changes that all these Republicans are objecting to are changes to the
method of the election, not the
manner. Method changes are covered by existing State laws, if a State has delegated to the Election Commission the power to extend voting hours, then that's legal in that State and a decision by the Election Commission to do just that does not require the State Legislature to act as it is not a change to the manner of the choice of Electors.
Following the Republican argument to its conclusion, you arrive at the point where any changes to any regulations governing powers given to the States by the Constitution would require legislation. For example, States govern education. The Republicans are essentially arguing that it would be unconstitutional for a curriculum review committee, created and empowered by the Legislature to make changes to State curriculum, to actually make those changes without a subsequent act of the State Legislature.
It's an idiotic argument and the legal explanation for why it's idiotic already exists and was written by a judge Trump himself appointed.