AZ GOP Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Give Legislature Power to Throw Out Election Results

[turtleblossom]

One section grants the Legislature the ability to revoke the secretary of state's certification at any time before the presidential inauguration.

Jan. 28, 2021, 8:09 PM CST / Updated Jan. 29, 2021, 9:40 AM CST
By Dartunorro Clark
The Republican chair of Arizona's state House Ways and Means Committee introduced a bill Wednesday that would give the Legislature authority to override the secretary of state’s certification of its electoral votes.

GOP Rep. Shawnna Bolick introduced the bill, which rewrites parts of the state's election law, such as sections on election observers and securing and auditing ballots, among other measures.

One section grants the Legislature, which is currently under GOP control, the ability to revoke the secretary of state's certification "by majority vote at any time before the presidential inauguration."

"The legislature may take action pursuant to this subsection without regard to whether the legislature is in regular or special session or has held committee or other hearings on the matter."

--- snip ----

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/arizona-gop-lawmaker-introduces-bill-give-legislature-power-toss-out-n1256097


Gee, that sounds very democratic.

[OnDoutside]

1. Bolicks to that....

[DSandra]

2. They are fascists, they don't care about democracy beyond its ability to give legitimacy to leaders

They know that they are losing their ability to win elections, that’s why they would rather throw out democracy as long as they stay in power.

[ace3csusm]

13. So they want to go back to Autocracy, did they see the mob on Jan 6...

They do realize what happened when the locals finally get feedup with them ... They arent going to jail...

[Goodheart]

3. Why hold elections at all?

[Irish_Dem]

10. That is what they want. Why even pretend any more.

[dem4decades]

4. 2020 may have been the last fair election.

[OAITW r.2.0]

11. I think it's the start.

GOP are hemorrhaging sane Republican voters after 1/6. Nuttier, extremist legislation only attracts nuttier extremists.

Sides are getting clearer. The canyon widens, there is no middle ground.

[Turin_C3PO]

18. Not if we keep fighting.

These fascists are outnumbered.

[dem4decades]

19. I agree but they control the shit States.

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. Sounds like Insurrection at the State level.

Is this the State government Arizona wants? Better decide quickly or they will decide for you.

[EndlessWire]

6. How can this possibly be legal???

They don't like how the people voted, so just toss it aside and put in what their party wants? How do the people feel about this?

[SergeStorms]

8. Legal schmeegal....

we're talking the Trumpublican here.

[targetpractice]

9. The Constitution seys the States choose the electoral college voters...

... In a manner they choose. The secret is out now. We are not a direct democracy.

The Constitution does not guarantee the right for us to directly vote for President.

[EndlessWire]

12. This is the best argument

for getting rid of the EC.

[radius777]

24. Agree, even the idiot Tom Cotton talked about this

as a rationale for voting to uphold the election results.

The more the GOP tries to corrupt the EC process (which they heavily benefit from to begin with) the greater the cries will be to abolish it and go with the popular vote. The National Popular Vote Compact could achieve this without amending the Constitution.

[Thekaspervote]

14. electors are chosen by each party in Federal elections not by state legislators

https://verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-republicans-cannot-throw-the-presidential-election-into-the-house-so-that-trump-wins

It’s called the electoral count act. If that were actually the case we would have doomed long ago

[targetpractice]

16. Thank you for that correction... But...

... It's my understanding that a Republican State with a Republican Legislature and Republican Governor could change the laws regarding sending electors BEFORE an election... Individual voting is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

From what you sent The Electoral Count Act involves elector certification based on a popular vote. Which is state law in all states currently. But, the Constitution doesn't guarantee the popular vote part, and allows the state legislature to make law that eliminates the popular vote bit. Obviously, this would a huge shock to our system. And fortunately, this idea has only been flirted with only a few times in the past.

[Thekaspervote]

17. Reading a little further here is what the constitution does say

But Republicans cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot plausibly argue that the Twelfth Amendment’s silences override the Electoral Count Act while ignoring the Amendment’s plain language. If neither slate of Pennsylvania’s electors is recognized, Biden’s 268 votes would fall short of a majority of the 538 total Electoral votes theoretically available. However, the Twelfth Amendment does not say anything about those votes. Instead, it says that “[t]he person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed” (emphasis added).
We have italicized that last word—appointed—to emphasize that the Constitution does not say that a candidate must win a majority of the potential number of theoretically eligible electors who might have been appointed. He or she must win only a majority of the electors who were actually appointed. In the scenario in which the Electoral Count Act is set aside so that Pennsylvania’s votes do not count, its 20 votes are subtracted from both the numerator and the denominator. Now Biden’s (assumed) 268 votes would be a majority of the 518 votes cast by the “whole number of electors appointed.” Biden would win in the Electoral College, meaning that the decision would not go to the House.
https://verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-republicans-cannot-throw-the-presidential-election-into-the-house-so-that-trump-wins

And this from a 7/2020 SCOTUS decision regarding electors

And second, the Court’s decision reinforces the validity of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under National Popular Vote, states that combine for at least 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most individual votes across the nation. (Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, totaling 196 electoral votes, have already passed the measure.)

In the 18 states currently without faithless elector laws, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that they have been using for over 200 years. In these states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are chosen by the political party

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

[targetpractice]

20. Thank you for taking the time, Thekaspervote...

... to steer me in a good direction. Truly appreciated.

I've been a member of this group since the 2000 FL recount, and I remember the issue of state legislatures' power to choose electors came up. I've read and heard many times some Constitutional scholar or another say something like, "Many will be surprised, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about the people's right to vote. That's up to the states." And, of course, Republicans squeal whenever the subject of federalizing elections comes up. So, I need to do some digging to understand this more.

Again... Thanks!

[dalton99a]

23. Her husband told her it's legal

Rep. Shawnna Bolick and her husband, Arizona Supreme Court justice Clint Bolick

[SergeStorms]

7. They complain about the legitimacy of elections...

this will go a long way in reassuring the public that everything is legitimate.

[Thekaspervote]

15. This is going no where. The federal courts or SCOTUS will slam it down

[rockfordfile]

21. I agree

[roamer65]

22. The Province of Michigan is looking better every day.

🇨🇦

[radius777]

25. Won't be legal. How winners are determined must be clear beforehand,

and courts are the final arbiter of whether or not those rules were followed.

The Constitution does allow legislatures to decide how to select electors. If Repub legislatures pass laws that they will be the ones to decide them beforehand - elections would not matter - which likely would spark backlash amongst the citizens of the state, big corporations would boycott. These swing states make a ton of money off of advertising - nobody would advertise as the outcome would be known.

[In It to Win It]

26. Typical. Change the rules when you don't win