In the 2000 election, for example, when the Florida Supreme Court ordered a complete recount of the vote for president in that state, Jeb Bush and his Republicans knew that a full, statewide recount would give Al Gore the presidency. (It would have discovered the additional 45,599 votes for Al Gore that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris arbitrarily and illegally chose not to count, as The New York Timesnoted a year later.)
In other words, had the U.S. Supreme Court not intervened to stop the Florida recount, the Republicans in the Florida legislature were fully prepared to hand the entire Florida electoral college vote -- and, thus, the White House -- to George W. Bush, even if a recount showed that Al Gore actually won the state. It was, after all, their constitutional right, as Rehnquist later noted in Bush v Gore.
As David Barstow and Somini Sengupta wrote for the New York Times on November 28, 2000, just before the Supreme Court intervened:
"The president of Florida's Senate said today that Gov. Jeb Bush had indicated his willingness to sign special legislation intended to award Florida's 25 Electoral College votes to his brother Gov. George W. Bush of Texas even as the election results were being contested."
"But," some say, "Kamala Harris is the Vice President, so she won't refuse to accept the Electoral College votes like Trump wanted Pence to do!"
That's true, but irrelevant.
While the updated Electoral Count Act explicitly redefines the Vice President's role as purely ceremonial, it does not -- and could not without a constitutional amendment --alter the power of individual Republican-controlled swing states to send Trump electors (claiming that the Harris-winning results in their states are the result of voter fraud) to DC.
Regardless of how transparently dishonest such an effort would be, its primary result would be to throw to the Supreme Court the decision over which electors to count.
Multiple Court observers have noted how light the Court's docket is this fall because, they speculate, Roberts is fully expecting to play a role in the election similar to what five Republicans on the Court did in 2000 when they stopped the Florida recount, handing the White House to George W. Bush.
The Court could then declare the election flawed because of the alleged voter fraud -- Republicans across the country, as well as Trump and Vance, are already preparing the ground for this claim -- and, citing the 12th Amendment, throw it to the House of Representatives.
Under that scenario, each state's House delegation has one single vote for president (the Senate is not involved under the 12th Amendment) and right now there are 26 states controlled by Republicans: the 26-24 vote would put Trump and Vance in the White House for the next four years.
That strategy would require one or more individual states to either refuse to certify their vote, delay certifying their vote, or submit multiple slates of electors.
And we're already hearing from both local elections officials and state legislators' rumblings that t his is exactly what they intend to do.
Another option to produce the same result would be for a majority vote in the House to refuse to certify a Harris win.
Which brings us back to Trump campaigning in Blue states. As Ed Kilgore wrote for The New Yorker:
"As it happens, there are ten highly competitive House races in California and New York, and a Trump appearance nearby could goose GOP turnout and promote party-organizing efforts in ways that could make a difference in those contests."
This brings us back to the scenario Michelangelo shared with me. The new, 2025-2026 House is sworn in on January 3rd, whereas the presidential vote is certified on January 6th.
If Democrats win the House in November and are sworn in on January 3rd, it's unlikely that Speaker Hakeem Jeffries would go along with Trump's scheme on January 6th, and Republicans wouldn't have the necessary majority in any case.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
