The Constitutional Process for Validating an Election


Here's an article from Jack maskell. This is published by the congressional research service. He's one of their legislative attorneys. And he talks about the constitutional process for validating an election. And he says, you know, something we kind of already know, there are electors, the electors vote. Under certain procedures, there are some provisions for objecting, but once the electors have voted, then both houses of Congress in a sense ratify a joint session ratifies that vote and the president is installed. And the article kind of stops there and stops there for the simple reason that the constitution does not envision a kind of big what if. And the what if is, what if it comes out later? That this victory at the ballot box was achieved through coordinated and massive electoral fraud. What happens in that case? What is the constitution say about that? And the answer is the constitution doesn't say anything about it. Now, interestingly, there are a line of court cases that deal with the issue of fraud, typically in local and state elections this by the way has never happened, at least on this alleged scale in the presidential election. And in general what courts do is they use something called the butt for principle. What's the budget for principle? It basically status question. But for the fraud. Would the result be the same yes or no? And I think I've been trying to apply that principle. In fact, we apply it in a very sort of thoughtful and systematic way in the movie. And there were just not simply a matter of dallying things up and going, well, this is the kind of overall, because of course elections are decided by electoral votes in each

Coming up next