Electoral College Questions

[Conkle, Daniel O.]

The U.S. Code - Title 3, Sections 1-15 - includes a series of provisions
detailing the dates and procedures that are to be followed.  Some of the
provisions are complex, but from a quick review, the statutes include a
suggestion that state election law should control the appointment of
electors, perhaps implying that federal courts should stay out.  They also
address the problem of late certification of results, although they seem to
contemplate a delinquent massager, not an extended and contested recount.
They also address the presentation of  the electoral votes to the Congress
and provide for the possibility of objections, but with the suggestion that
Congress should not reject a certification made by state officials in
accordance with state law.

Dan Conkle
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Daniel O. Conkle
Professor of Law
Indiana University School of Law
Bloomington, Indiana  47405
(812) 855-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
mailto:conkle at indiana.edu <mailto:conkle at indiana.edu>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Richard  Dougherty writes in part as follows:

 5.) From U.S. Code, concerning the failure to choose electors in the
November election:
TITLE 3 - THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1 - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
-STATUTE- Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of
choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by
law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as
the legislature of such State may direct.
SOURCE-  (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672.)

Richard Dougherty
University of Dallas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20001108/34c6936e/attachment.htm