Fwd: proposals for revote

[earl maltz]

While admittedly this section might conceivably be subject to a variety of
different meanings, my view  is that it applies only to controverises about
the result of the election held on the appointed day (e.g., the proper
countoing of votes) rather than to allowing some new election that is
clearly inconsistent with section 1.

At 01:50 PM 11/9/00 -0500, you wrote:
>3 USC Sec. 5 declares when controversies in selecting electors arise,
>electors determined by legislatively established methods, judicial and
>otherwise, so long as the methods were in place prior to election day,
>are conclusive.
>
>This seems to include the possibilities of revotes, so long as a revote
>emerged as an appropriate remedy from the legislatively established
>review process, including judicial review under Flla. statutes.
>
>Chris Schroeder
>Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies
>Director of the Program in Public Law
>PO Box 90360
>Duke Law School
>Durham, NC 27708-0360
>voice:  919 613 7096
>fax: 919 613 7161
>
>>>> emaltz at CRAB.RUTGERS.EDU 11/09/00 04:13AM >>>
>>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 09:03:01 +0000
>>To: CONLAWPROF at listserve.ucla.edu
>>From: earl maltz <emaltz at crab.rutgers.edu>
>>Subject: proposals for revote
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert, but wouldn't a revote be prohibiteed
>by
>Chap. 3, Sec.1, paaragraph 1 of the U.S. Code, which specifically
>provides
>that electors will be chosen on the first Tuesday after the first
>Monday in
>November?  Of course, the Code allows the state court to invalidate
>the
>ballots, but in this case that wouldn't help Gore.
>
>