If the Florida electors don't vote

[Garrett Epps]

This is how things were done in the disputed Tilden Hayes
race of 1876--each of the three disputed states (one of
which was Florida!) forwarded two sets of electoral votes.

Garrett Epps wrote:

> Actually I believe the constitution combined with Title 3
> of the U.S.c provides a comprehensive means of settling
> the dispute.  A state procedure is conclusive if it is
> finished six days before the date set for voting.  If not,
> there are provisions by which the House may decide which
> of two or more competing slates is the correct one.  Check
> it out--it's very detailed.  Amendment XX and 3 U.S.C. 19
> clearly provide for an acting president while unsettled
> electoral votes are determined.  My only question is
> whether Florida's state procedures lose jurisdiction over
> the matter if they are not concluded by Dec. 12 (six days
> before the date set for casting electoral votes).  See 3
> U.S.C.  ss 5, 15 et seq.  You may take it for granted that
> electors will be appointed--perhaps, as in 1876, two sets.
>
> "Volokh, Eugene" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>         Art. II, sec. 1 says that "each State shall
>> appoint" a certain number of electors, and then the
>> President will only win the electoral college if he has
>> a "majority of the whole number of Electors appointed."
>> I don't think Florida has a choice as to appointing the
>> electors -- it *shall* do so.  Now maybe if the ballots
>> are declared invalid, the electors will be required to
>> abstain, but then neither side will get a majority, and
>> the election will be sent to the House.
>>
>>         Eugene
>>
>> Leslie Goldstein writes:
>>
>>      so maybe all of Florida's ballots should be
>>      declared invalid, which
>>      would give Gore the ajority of the valid electoral
>>      votes?>
>>
>>      earl maltz wrote:
>>      >
>>      > >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.
>>
> --
> Garrett Epps
> Associate Professor
> University of Oregon School of Law
> 357 Knight Law Center
> 1221 University of Oregon
> Eugene OR 97403
>
> PHONE: (541) 346-1578
>   FAX: (541) 346-1564
>
> gepps at law.uoregon.edu
> Trouble sleeping? Try my latest works:
> http://www.law.uoregon.edu/faculty/epps/default.html
>

--
Garrett Epps
Associate Professor
University of Oregon School of Law
357 Knight Law Center
1221 University of Oregon
Eugene OR 97403

PHONE: (541) 346-1578
  FAX: (541) 346-1564

gepps at law.uoregon.edu
Trouble sleeping? Try my latest works:
http://www.law.uoregon.edu/faculty/epps/default.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20001109/90c974ca/attachment.htm