December 1, 2023


Advocacy. Mediation. Success.

Symposium: Leave courts out of presidential elector dispute

Symposium: Leave courts out of presidential elector dispute

Derek Muller is a visiting professor of law at Notre Dame Regulation Faculty. He wrote an amicus brief in support of neither party in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Division of State v. Baca.

On January 6, 2017, the president of the Senate—Vice President Joe Biden—in the presence of the Senate and the Dwelling of Reps, and with the support of 4 tellers, opened the certificates of the electors from each individual of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. The tellers counted the votes aloud, proceeding in alphabetical buy by point out. The rely achieved Colorado.

The teller, Representative Gregg Harper of Mississippi, introduced to the joint session, “The certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Colorado seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Hillary Clinton of the State of New York gained nine votes for President and Tim Kaine of the Commonwealth of Virginia gained nine votes for Vice President.” These nine votes were in the long run involved in the ultimate vote complete for Hillary Clinton, 227 electoral votes. Equally, Congress counted 12 electoral votes from the point out of Washington for different candidates.

Now, some electors from Colorado and Washington are inquiring the courts to review the point out laws that govern the votes that Congress counted. Micheal Baca tried to vote for John Kasich for president, and Baca was changed in the Colorado delegation. Baca’s replacement’s vote was counted in Congress. (The exact same thing took place with an elector in Minnesota.) Washington experienced 4 electors who solid votes for candidates other than Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine their votes were counted, but they were later on fined, and three electors, which includes Peter Bret Chiafalo, brought this assert.

Why are these conditions in the Supreme Court docket? Why is this issue not remaining to Congress? These need to be the preeminent issues for the court as it considers Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Division of State v. Baca.

Congress has the special electric power to rely electoral votes. The twelfth Modification presents that “[t]he President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and Dwelling of Reps, open up all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” At the time Congress resolved to rely or not to rely electoral votes, courts are not able to revisit that final decision.

Congress has exercised its judgment in every single presidential election, occasionally overtly, about which votes are legitimate and whether or not point out laws adequately approved the collection of presidential electors. In the 1808 election, for instance, Congress regarded as whether or not Massachusetts’ electors were preferred irregularly, and Congress rejected an irregular vote from Kentucky.

Congress resolved amongst competing slates of electors in the elections of 1872 and 1876. It rejected votes from southern states soon after the Civil War and votes solid for deceased candidates. Other objections in Congress to point out electoral submissions abound. In 1960, Hawaii despatched the votes of three slates of electors, two Democratic slates and 1 Republican slate, to Congress. Congress expressly refused to established a precedent when it selected to rely 1 of the Democratic slates.

The point of listing these incidents is not that the court need to consider detect of them in figuring out whether or not Colorado and Washington acted properly in 2016. Rather, this background displays that it remains with Congress, not the federal courts, to make your mind up whether or not Colorado and Washington acted properly. And at the time Congress resolved to rely Baca’s alternative and Washington’s electors, there was nothing at all remaining for a federal court to do.

The procedural posture of this case differs radically from Bush v. Gore. There, the Supreme Court docket articulated the phrases of a recount to the point out of Florida. Florida ended up with a slate of Republican electors who voted for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. These electoral votes were introduced to Congress. Congress was cost-free to reject Florida’s electors, no matter of what the Supreme Court docket stated. In truth, various members of the Dwelling of Reps tried to item to the counting of Florida’s electors, but they unsuccessful to obvious the procedural hurdle that expected at minimum 1 senator to be a part of their objection. Additionally, the Democratic electors could have submitted their votes for Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman to Congress and urged Congress to make your mind up which slate to decide. But they did not.

The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the 10th Circuit wrongly discovered “a background of anomalous votes, all of which have been counted by Congress,” and stated that “we are mindful of no instance in which Congress has unsuccessful to rely an anomalous vote.” Right until just lately, no point out law identified a emptiness in the workplace of presidential elector when an elector solid a vote opposite to the applicant he pledged to support. Consider North Carolina in 1968, when Congress counted the vote of a “faithless” elector in the absence of a point out statute authorizing a alternative. Only in modern background have such statutes been enacted. And only in 2016 were they ever made use of to change an elector.

Far more to the point is whether or not Congress has ever counted the vote of an elector who changed someone deemed under point out law to be faithless. And in 2016, Congress did so twice—Congress counted the vote solid by a Colorado elector who changed Baca when a emptiness arose, and Congress counted the vote of a alternative elector in Minnesota. Additionally, Congress did refuse to rely the votes of faithless electors—Congress did not rely Baca’s vote simply because it did not recognize Baca as an elector. (In truth, Baca hardly ever asked Congress to rely his vote.)

Admittedly, the case from Washington presents greater issues. Presidential electors from Washington were in a position to solid votes for their favored candidates. Congress counted the votes solid for people candidates. Washington subsequently fined people electors. On the 1 hand, the court may possibly conclude that Congress has the electric power to decide the regularity of the appointment of electors, which includes current point out laws that would impose fines on electors in sure circumstances. The court may possibly also conclude that if Congress has approved the greater electric power of a point out in recognizing that an elector vacates his seat in sure circumstances, Congress has also approved the lesser electric power of imposing a economical penalty on faithless electors. On the other hand, the presidential electors in Washington gained a penalty only soon after Congress achieved and counted their votes.

The twelfth Modification expressly provides Congress the electric power to rely electoral votes. That contains the electric power to decide which electors are right and which electoral votes to rely. A judicial final decision that a point out law wrongly changed or disciplined a presidential elector would efficiently next-guess Congress’ vote-counting. The Supreme Court docket need to not next-guess Congress’ judgment, simply because the Structure provides the electric power of figuring out the identities of electors and counting electoral votes to Congress, not to courts.

The write-up Symposium: Depart courts out of presidential elector dispute appeared to start with on SCOTUSblog.