i hate to even ask this but... Nebraska........

[Takket]

the state government there is all rethug. if they pass a bill in the next few days to do away with the split district electoral vote assignments, could we lose that 1 CD electoral vote for biden, and send a 269-269 EC vote to the house?

assuming biden finishes with exactly 270, which looks like a real possibility.......

[BumRushDaShow]

1. I would think that messing with that in the middle of a Presidential election

would be lawsuit city. Would probably need to delve into the NE state constitution to see what is legal to do.

[aeromanKC]

2. Ex post facto

Seems kinda ex post facto to me. Unconstitutional.

[Coleman]

3. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional

Can't pass a law to change what has already been done. They can pass a law to change it for the future elections.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. For future elections maybe, not this one after the fact.

[The Magistrate]

5. Unconstitutional, Sir

An ex post facto law, something specifically forbidden in the Constitution, established to the point even the present panel of kangaroos could not dare over-ride it.

A law could be passed to discontinue the practice in future, but the election needs to be settled under the law prevailing at the time.

You can see this in criminal offenses quite obviously. If a number of years has elapsed between commission of a crime, and apprehension of the offender, if the law has changed in the interim, the person is tried and sentenced under the law prevailing when the crime was committed.

[Takket]

7. ok... phew....... i'll come down off the ceiling now lol thank you

[Turin_C3PO]

6. No.

Unconstitutional.

[arthurgoodwin]

8. Ex Post Facto in US is not what you think

Yes, they probably could. The prohibition in US Constitution against ex post facto laws has been repeatedly interpreted in US Supreme Court cases as applying only to "criminal acts".

From wiki article on subject:

Over the years, however, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters, and established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws.[28] The case dealt with the Article I, Section 10, prohibition on ex post facto laws, because it concerned a Connecticut state law.
Not all laws with retroactive effects have been held to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has a retroactive effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders and also applies to offenders whose crimes were committed before the law was enacted.[29] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet, do not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because these laws do not impose any kind of punishment.[30][31]