What Really Happens in a Challenged Election

by David W. Tollen and guest contributor Robert W. Tollen

Many commentators assume the new House of Representatives would choose the President after a challenged election — with each state’s delegation casting a single vote. Others say the Supreme Court would decide. Each scenario gives Republicans an advantage, since they’ll probably control more state delegations, despite their overall minority in the House, and they appointed most of the Justices. But in fact, neither scenario is likely, and the commentators focused on them misunderstand the law. State governments resolve disputes about their voters’ presidential electors, under state law. And the new Congress rules on challenges to those decisions in the normal way, with each house voting by simple majority.

The Unlikely Case of a Tie or Plurality in the Electoral College

When does the House of Representatives choose the President, voting by state? Only when no candidate gets a majority of the electors, per the rules in the Twelfth Amendment.

The electors tied in 1824, so the House decided.
In 1824, the House chose the President because, with three major candidates, no one had earned a majority of electors. That had never happened and hasn’t since.

With an even number of electors, 538, a tie is always possible — and always unlikely. The odds don’t favor a plurality either: the other way for the vote to produce no majority. The electors could produce a plurality if they divided their votes among three or more candidates, but that’s close to impossible with no third party candidate.

A State that Doesn’t Choose Electors?

What if a state fails to appoint electors, thanks to a dispute? Would that mean no majority, so the House decides, voting by state? No. The Twelfth Amendment gives the presidency to “the person having the greatest number of votes” by the electors, “if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed” (emphasis added). So the winning candidate doesn’t need a majority of theoretical electors but rather a majority of those actually “appointed.” If a state fails to appoint electors, the magic majority number goes down. Someone still gets a majority in a two-candidate race, unless there’s a tie.

No state has ever failed to appoint electors. State politicians have a huge incentive to settle any dispute by the deadline set by federal law: December 8 this year. No one wants to throw away the entire state’s vote. And if the deadline looms with no resolution, the governor can certify the winning slate.

Battles in the States and Decision by Both Houses of Congress

Louisiana's 1876 certification of electors
Louisiana’s 1876 certificate for the electoral vote (for Rutherford B. Hayes)

The battle, then, rages in the states. In each state, each presidential candidate will have a slate of electors pledged to vote for him. In a dispute about which slate won, each candidate tries to sway the state’s election commission or its courts or whoever else has authority under state law.

What if that state decision-maker chooses wrong — violates state law? It’s not over. The governor notifies Congress of the winning slate of electors and of their votes for President. The new Congress takes office on January 3 (seventeen days before the President), and it counts the electors’ votes on January 6. At that point, Congress rules on any objection to the state government’s slate of electors: any claim that the other slate won. The two houses of Congress can overrule the governor’s certification if they agree, voting by simple majority. So if a party has the majority in both houses, its members of Congress can overrule the state governor. If the two houses don’t agree to overrule the governor, his or her certification stands.

The Federal Courts’ Role or Lack Thereof

When does the Supreme Court get involved? The likely answer is never.

Nothing is impossible, but it’s hard to imagine the federal courts weighing in on Congress’ decisions about presidential electors. Federal courts don’t judge “political questions.” In other words, as the Supreme Court said in a 1962 decision, federal courts must refuse cases involving a “constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department”—to Congress, in this case. (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186.) It’s hard to imagine a more obvious political question than Congress’ decision about the election of the President.

Could the federal courts dive into a state-level battle about the choice of electors? In general, the answer is no. State law governs those battles. Federal courts can’t get involved unless the state’s process somehow violates federal law, which has little to say about elector disputes.

Didn’t the Supreme Court get involved in Bush v. Gore?

The Bush v. Gore decision gave the Republican Florida's electors.
Demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court, Bush v. Gore, 2000.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court did dive into an elector battle, in Florida. In the Bush/Gore election, the Florida supreme court ordered a recount in one county, overruling the state election commission’s ruling in favor of George W. Bush. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida court. The national Supreme Court didn’t try to interpret Florida law, but it did hold that the planned recount process was so erratic that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment for all citizens. The Supreme Court also ruled that too little time remained before the deadline to set up a new recount. So the Court reinstated the state commission’s ruling. (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98.)

In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court did not choose a winner in Bush v. Gore. It let Florida’s government decide disputes about counting Florida voters. It just overruled a choice by Florida’s court that (allegedly) violated equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Once burned, twice shy. No state is likely to set up a dispute process that misses the deadline. And while a state might adopt an unconstitutional procedure for resolving elector disputes, the federal courts should limit themselves to refusing that procedure, leaving the state to pick another. The federal courts cannot choose the President or even the state’s electors. Plus, the Supreme Court took heavy fire for its decision in 2000. So today’s justices may bend over backward to avoid any role in choosing the President.

The End-Game and the Speaker

States, then, resolve their own disputes about presidential electors. The new Congress resolves almost any remaining dispute, voting by simple majority. But if the two houses can’t agree, the slate certified by the state’s governor gets to vote.

Of course, we can’t predict all contingencies, and neither can the law. So the process could still break down. But that’s less likely than many suppose. And the Constitution leaves no doubt about what happens if the system produces no winner by inauguration day, January 20. Under the Twentieth Amendment, the Speaker of the House serves as acting President. Nancy Pelosi (presumably) would lead the nation until Congress resolves the dispute.


Guest contributor Robert W. Tollen is a retired attorney. He practiced for forty-five years, primarily in labor and employment, and he has degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. He is also David Tollen’s father.

Images:

  • The House of Representatives, 1822, probably reworked 1823, by Samuel F. B. Morse
  • Louisiana’s 1876 certificate of the electoral vote.
  • 2000 Presidential election recount, by David from Washington D.C., provided by Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

© 2020 by David W. Tollen

America Has No Guarantee of Freedom

In a second term, the ballot box would no longer restrict Trump. So we can expect:

  • Expanded use of the Department of Justice (DoJ) against the President’s opponents, including members of Congress.
  • More use of force against protesters.
  • Federal tolerance of crime against the President’s opponents (e.g., Michigan’s governor).
  • Refusal of federal disaster funds and other resources for blue states.
  • Further suppression of information on Covid-19’s nationwide impact.
  • Prompt firing of senior officials and federal prosecutors who try to restrain the President.
  • White House orders blocking DoJ prosecution of the President’s allies.
  • More separation of children from immigrant parents.
  • Withdrawal of federal resources aimed at curbing White supremacists.
  • Federal support for attacks on the voting process, particularly in swing states, probably leading to “disqualification” of large numbers of ballots and voters in 2022 and 2024.

Continue reading “America Has No Guarantee of Freedom”

King George III: The Abdication that Never Happened

George III was Britain’s king during the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence called him, “A Prince whose character is … marked by every act which may define a Tyrant.” But recent research has revealed a surprise about the king — one that hardly smacks of tyranny. In 1783, as the Revolutionary War drew to a close, George III almost abdicated—as revealed by a draft abdication speech in his own hand, recently discovered. The king’s speech blames the loss of the colonies on selfish partisanship within Britain. (Apparently, little has changed in the U.K. or in its former colonies.) King George also concluded that he had nothing left to offer. “A long Experience … has gradually prepared My mind to expect the time when I should be no longer of Utility to this Empire; that hour is now come; I am therefore resolved to resign My Crown and all the Dominions appertaining to it to the Prince of Wales my Eldest Son and Lawful Successor and to retire to the care of My Electoral Dominions the Original Patrimony of my Ancestors.” (The last point means he planned to move to his family’s duchy in Germany.) Continue reading “King George III: The Abdication that Never Happened”

Police History: Constable vs. Paramilitary

Calls to abolish or massively reform America’s police sound new and radical. Yet history offers a very old model for those reforms: an alternative to our current military style of policing. In the world of the Founding Fathers, civilian constables enforced the law. They had done so for 150 years in the American colonies — and for longer in England. And they would continue well into the 19th Century.

police history: a constable or beadle
An English constable (technically, a beadle)

Continue reading “Police History: Constable vs. Paramilitary”

This Week in History: Althing

This week in 930 CE, the chieftains of Iceland established the Althing, which remains the country’s parliament. It’s the world’s oldest surviving legislature. Northmen (sometimes called Vikings) had arrived on the island about 60 years before, and now they set about to govern themselves – meeting outdoors at a place called Thingvellir, which means “assembly fields,” near modern-day Reykjavik.

Continue reading “This Week in History: Althing”

This Week in History: the Ashmolean Museum

This week in 1683, the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology opened in Oxford. It was the world’s first university museum and was named after Elias Ashmole, who in 1677 had given Oxford University what became the museum’s first collection. Construction also began in 1677. The current museum building was finished in 1845.

Ashmolean Museum

Continue reading “This Week in History: the Ashmolean Museum”

This week in history: Kublai Khan

This week in 1260, Kublai Khan became ruler of the Mongol Empire. Grandson to the great Genghis Khan, the empire’s founder, Kublai was the fifth Khagan, or Great Khan. He succeeded to the throne after the death of his eldest brother, Mongke. The latter died in 1259 without naming a successor, and almost immediately Kublai’s younger brother, Ariq Boke, held a Mongol great council and had himself named Khagan. But Kublai then held his own great council, which declared him Khagan, and went to war against Ariq Boke. The Mongol civil war that lasted four years, and of course Kublai won. Continue reading “This week in history: Kublai Khan”