Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Pelosi Preparing For House to Decide Outcome of the Presidential Election

Report: Pelosi Preparing For House to Decide Outcome of the Presidential Election

“how many state delegations the Democrats win in this upcoming election could determine who our next president is.”

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1262814903867518978

Nancy Pelosi has reportedly begun rallying Democrats in the event the House is called upon to decide the 2020 presidential election.

The House is constitutionally provided the privilege of selecting the president in the unlikely event of an Electoral College tie.  A “contingent election” such as this has not happened since 1824, and happened only once before that in 1800, so there is some confusion about what it actually entails.

For example, Pelosi and Politico (see below) seem to be under the impression that the new House, elected at the same time as the president and sworn in the week before the presidential inauguration, would make this decision; however, the Constitution states that the choice shall be made “immediately,” i.e. in the House at the time of the Electoral College tie, not after the new Congress is sworn in months later.

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.  [emphasis mine]

Of note, both the 1800 and 1824 contingent elections were decided by the outgoing Houses, those of the 6th and 18th Congresses, respectively.

The obvious reason Pelosi is pushing for the new Congress to make the decision is that she hopes to gain the needed state delegations to permit a Democrat win.  In the current House, Democrats have 22 state delegations to the Republicans’ 26.

This argument would, naturally, be moot if there is no change to—or if Republicans gain even more—state delegations in November.

Politico reports:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has begun mobilizing Democrats for the possibility that neither Joe Biden nor President Donald Trump will win an outright Electoral College victory, a once-in-a-century phenomenon that would send the fate of the presidency to the House of Representatives to decide.

Under that scenario . . . every state’s delegation gets a single vote. Who receives that vote is determined by an internal tally of each lawmaker in the delegation. This means the presidency may not be decided by the party that controls the House itself but by the one that controls more state delegations in the chamber. And right now, Republicans control 26 delegations to Democrats’ 22, with Pennsylvania tied and Michigan a 7-6 plurality for Democrats, with a 14th seat held by independent Justin Amash.

. . . . Pelosi, in a Sunday letter to House Democrats, urged them to consider whether the House might be pulled into deciding who is president when determining where to focus resources on winning seats in November. This could lead to more concerted efforts by Democrats to win in states such as Montana and Alaska — typically Republican turf but where Democrats have been competitive statewide. In these states, Democratic victories could flip an entire delegation with a single upset House victory.

“The Constitution says that a candidate must receive a majority of the state delegations to win,” Pelosi wrote. “We must achieve that majority of delegations or keep the Republicans from doing so.”

CBS News has more:

“Instead of giving every member of Congress a vote, the 12th Amendment gives each state one vote, which is determined by a vote of the state’s delegation,” Pelosi, of California, said to her fellow House Democrats. “In other words, how many state delegations the Democrats win in this upcoming election could determine who our next president is.”

President Trump, by contrast, appears to be operating under the (to me, seemingly valid) interpretation that it would be the current/outgoing, not the future, House that makes the decision.

The New York Post reports:

Meanwhile, Trump talked about the possibility of the House deciding the election during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday.

“And I don’t want to end up in the Supreme Court and I don’t want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go back to Congress — does everyone understand that?” Trump said.

“I think it’s 26 to 22 or something because it’s counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage. Oh, they’re going to be thrilled to hear that.”

That said, the currently scheduled dates of the Electoral College vote and related formalities in Congress do suggest that the House decision on the presidential election might not occur until after the new Congress convenes.

CBS News reports:

Presidential electors are scheduled to meet and cast their votes in their respective states December 14. On January 6, the Senate and House are set to assemble in a joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes and declare the election results.

The 20th Amendment requires the new Congress to convene at noon on January 3, unless the previous Congress passes a law changing the date.

This schedule, however, is set without consideration of a possible Electoral College tie, of historical precedent, nor of the Constitutional requirement that an “immediate” choice be made in such an event.

As an Electoral College tie seems very unlikely, Pelosi is probably—and cynically—attempting to get the Democrat base to turn out for House Democrats by dangling the (im)possibility of their deciding the presidential election in the House sometime after the new Congress convenes.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 28, 2020 at 7:02 pm

DOWN WITH PELOSI.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi has begun mobilizing Democrats for the possibility that neither Joe Biden nor President Donald Trump will win an outright Electoral College victory, a once-in-a-century phenomenon that would send the fate of the presidency to the House of Representatives to decide.”

I am old enough to remember when the Joseph Goebbels media assured us that Biden was going to win a 57-state landslide.

This move by Pelosi reeks of desperation. How bad are d internal polls for HoR? Bad enough that d are dangling a potential HoR settling the Presidential election.

Just more proof that the left are intending to steal the election.
Voter Fraud.
Mail in ballots fraud.
Vote Harvesting fraud.
While Dementia Joe sits in his basement counting M&Ms thinking they are little magic pills.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/18/michigan-allows-ballot-harvesting-for-more-than-four-days/

    A Michigan court decision that will extend the deadline for postmarked mail-in ballots to be received up to 14 days after Election Day will also allow ballots to be submitted by third parties — a practice called “ballot harvesting” — during a specific period.

    As Breitbart News reported earlier Friday, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens ruled that mail-in ballots postmarked by November 2 — the day before Election Day — will still be counted in Michigan in the 2020 election.

    In addition, Judge Stephens said that strangers can return other people’s ballots — normally a felony — between 5:01 p.m. on Friday, October 30, and 8:00 p.m. on November 3, the moment that polling places are supposed to close on Election Day.

    Judge Stephens wrote:

    This court enjoins MCL 168.932(f) in this election from 5:00 p.m. Friday October 30, 2020 until the close of the polls on November 3, 2020, in so far as it limits the class of persons who may render an absent voter assistance. As a result, a voter casting an absent voter ballot in the November 2020 general election may select any individual the voter chooses to render assistance in returning an absent voter ballot, but only for the limited time period when assistance from the clerk is not required, i.e., between 5:01 p.m. on the Friday before the election and the close of polls on Election Day.

      ronk in reply to 4fun. | September 29, 2020 at 7:27 am

      wonder if the democrats thought this through, in previous years they used all the excuses this judge over turned, the ballots arriving late, no postmark, etc that could change the election unless they throw out the military ballots

I hate the Democrats more and more every day.

If Pelosi is Speaker and the Democrats control a majority of State Delegations the Democrats will not perform the usually ministerial function of counting the Electoral Votes. They will instead put the election in the hands of the House.

The coward John Roberts will do nothing to oppose this affront to Democracy. He would rule on technical grounds of “standing”. It is vital that Amy Coney Barrett be on the Court. to counter this coward.

    Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | September 29, 2020 at 2:29 am

    You are making a fundamental mistake. The votes are not counted by the House. They’re counted by the outgoing vice president, in the presence of a joint session of both houses. Their function is merely to witness the count. The House, no matter who controls it or a majority of state delegations, has no say in the matter unless and until the vice president determines that no presidential candidate got a majority.

Too bad the FBI and DOJ won’t take action to preserve the integrity of our elections.

    Has that ever been something within their bailiwick? Better that such matters should remain at the local level, to my estimation. However, I am sympathetic with your thinking 😉

    puhiawa in reply to r2468. | September 28, 2020 at 11:35 pm

    I believe the FBI/DOJ are actively working for the Democrats…to the extent I believe Wray is still spying on Americans in general and Trump in particular via the NSA, and using the information to benefit the deep state and the Democrats. The reveal today about the FBI refusing to shut down its spying program is most disturbing.

Face is out of symmetry. I bet Picasso could have done something with such an image to it less reviling.

And there is the issue: the 20th Amendment.

Prior to its adoption in 1933, the starting date for a new Congress and the swearing-in of a new POTUS and VPOTUS were both on March 4. The 20th Amendment changed that to new Congress on January 3 and new POTUS/VPOTUS on January 20, with the intent to prevent really long lame ducks.

States do their counts on December 14, Congress doesn’t do its count and certification until January 6. Hello, SCOTUS.

    Exactly. It would have to be the new Congress deciding a contingent election, because until the EVs are counted Congress has no way to “know” what the EV totals are.

    It can’t act until those votes have been counted by Congress.

    Those wanting the prior Congress to make the decision would lose in SCOTUS.

Wow, 16 trimesters of Democrat-led witch hunts, warlock trials, protests, and a progressive, insidious subversion of democracy. Lose your Pro-Choice quasi-religion (“ethics”).

Imbeciles are Democrats by default. End of story.

Problem is one that a lot of aged woemn have–a wrinkly neck aka “turkey neck”. She’s a gobbler alright.

All of this is a prelude to massive fraud…to excuse it by process and run roughshod over voters.
Now….this is in spite of the fact that Biden is projected to win by a landslide, both via votes and the electoral college.
It is all very suspect, and we have a media, including the Fox News team, that are totally invested in destroying America in order to stop Trump from doing what was normal prior to Bush.

The Democrats are up to something highly nefarious in the election. Whatever it is, they’ve been planning this for over 3 years. They are going to throw it into chaos and try to steal it.

Eastwood Ravine | September 29, 2020 at 12:18 am

This is not the plan of Party that think they can win a straight-up election. That’s all we need to know and how we proceed.

The democrats seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding what “shall” means in the Constitution.

For example, Pelosi and Politico (see below) seem to be under the impression that the new House, elected at the same time as the president and sworn in the week before the presidential inauguration, would make this decision; however, the Constitution states that the choice shall be made “immediately,” i.e. in the House at the time of the Electoral College tie, not after the new Congress is sworn in months later.

This is incorrect. The new congress is sworn in on January 3; any electoral college tie can only happen on January 6, when the vice president counts votes in the presence of a joint session of the new congress.

Of note, both the 1800 and 1824 contingent elections were decided by the outgoing Houses, those of the 6th and 18th Congresses, respectively.

That was when the new congress’s term (and the president’s term) didn’t start until March 4. The votes were counted in early February, in the presence of the outgoing congress. Since 1887 the date for the vote count has been fixed by law as January 6th at 1:00 PM, and since 1933 the incoming congress’s term has started on January 3.

This schedule, however, is set without consideration of a possible Electoral College tie, of historical precedent, nor of the Constitutional requirement that an “immediate” choice be made in such an event.

The date for the vote count is set in law. It would take an act of Congress to change it, which means majorities in both houses as well as the president’s signature.

And the 20th amendment deliberately made the congress’s term start three weeks before the president’s, and three days before the date already set in law for the vote count, precisely so that the new congress should handle it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend