#Election Certification

[gwydionmisha]

Democrats sue Georgia over election rules that could 'invite chaos'

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Rebecca Crosby and Noel Sims at Popular Information:

During Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, Senator JD Vance (R-OH) refused to acknowledge that former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. “Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election?” Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) asked Vance. “Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance responded.  Vance then echoed Trump’s false claims about election fraud occurring during the 2020 election, despite there being no evidence of any significant fraud. “Obviously, Donald Trump and I think that there were problems in 2020,” Vance said.  When asked by CBS moderator Norah O’Donnell, Vance refused to say if he would accept the results of the 2024 election if it was certified by all 50 states. Vance deflected, stating, “[W]e’re focused on the future.” 

A more likely scenario for the 2024 election, however, is that the results of closely contested states are not officially certified by Republican election officials in an effort to validate spurious claims of fraud. A new report published this week by the Brookings Institution revealed that election officials across the country have histories of election denialism and have refused to certify elections. A report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found “[a]t least 35 current county election officials” that have voted against certifying an election in the past. Public Wise, Informing Democracy, and the Center for Media and Democracy identified dozens of additional election officials that have “promot[ed] election denialism or amplif[ied] unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud or irregularities.” The amount of election deniers acting as election officials “presents a challenge for monitoring certification,” specifically in swing states and remote areas. 

This has been a growing problem since Trump began spreading lies about election fraud during the 2020 election. The Brookings Institution found that in 2020, “at least 17 county election officials across six swing states attempted to prevent certification of county vote totals.” In 2022, it grew to “at least 22 county election officials” who voted to delay certification in swing states. This year, there have been “at least eight county officials” that have already voted against certifying election results for primary or special elections. This is part of a larger landscape of election deniers in positions of power across the country. According to a data tracker created by States United Action, there are 26 election deniers that hold statewide office and 172 election deniers in Congress. It is not clear what will happen if state officials refuse to certify the 2024 presidential election. But the point of blocking certification is to inject chaos and uncertainty into the election process.

The basics of certification

Until the last few years, election certification was a process that received very little attention from activists or media. It is a formality that occurs days or weeks after election day, depending on state or local procedures — by which point the winners of nearly every election have already been declared, defeated candidates have conceded, and everyone has moved on. According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, election certification follows four general steps, although there are some differences in how each state handles the process. First, when polls close on election day, and all the ballots are counted, election officials release a preliminary count. While these results are technically unofficial, they are the numbers that the media uses to call races on election night. Then, election officials will canvass the results. According to the EAC, “[t]he canvass process aggregates and confirms every valid ballot cast and counted, including mail, uniformed and overseas citizen, early voting, Election Day, and provisional ballots.”  Most states also require an audit of the technology that was used to record and count ballots. 

Once these steps are complete, election officials certify the results. Deadlines for certification vary for state and local races, but usually fall between mid-November and mid-December. The deadline for certifying presidential election results is six days before the meeting of the Electoral College. In 2024, states will need to certify their presidential election results by December 11. At the county level, it is typically a board of three to five officials who certify results, although in some places just one person is responsible for certification. Once counties have certified their results, they send their results for state and federal elections to state authorities who aggregate and certify statewide results. The certification process is separate from the process by which a state might investigate any irregularities in an election, like voter fraud. Instead, other state officials such as a secretary of state or governor are vested with the authority and resources to investigate any issues and address them through a recount or audit. The certification process simply affirms that election officials have double checked that they counted correctly and the technology they used was working properly.

Most importantly, election certification is not a discretionary duty. Instead, it is a ministerial responsibility, meaning it is a task that must be completed by the officials elected or appointed to do so. All states have some kind of mechanism at their disposal to ensure that the certification duty is fulfilled. Some states have statutes specifically mandating that election officials complete certification. Others have more general laws to ensure that elected officials fulfill the non-discretionary requirements of their office. In 2022, these mechanisms ensured that election results were certified even in counties where election officials resisted certification.

Popular Information takes a look at how the Republicans could commit perfidious acts to subvert the 2024 elections, such as refusal to certify election results that show Donald Trump losing.

[cherryblossomshadow]

Robert Reich

If Harris wins, will Congress certify the results? There are now 172 election deniers in Congress. But the new Congress gets sworn in before the presidential election is certified. Your down ballot votes could decide whether your presidential vote is respected or discarded.

[originalleftist]

I think in the US we've reached a point where we basically have to win all branches of government, a clean sweep, or lose it all.

The old checks and balances don't work any more. A Democratic Congress but Republican President doesn't mean checks and compromise, or even gridlock- it means the President overruling Congress by executive fiat with Presidential immunity, rubber-stamped by a partisan Supreme Court.

A Republican Congress with a Democratic President just means Congress refuses to certify the election results, and we get a Republican President anyway.

We win it all, or lose it all.

[trendynewsnow]

Tensions Rise at Washoe County Commission Meeting Over Election Certification

The Tension at the Washoe County Commission Meeting On July 9, Clara Andriola settled into her seat at the Washoe County commission meeting, greeted by a crowd of visibly agitated attendees. The commission serves as the primary legislative body for Washoe County, Nevada, and Andriola, a seasoned business executive in the area, was appointed to fill a vacancy on the five-member board the previous…

[ezrasf]

“The Georgia Constitution provides that only the General Assembly may provide for a law for a procedure whereby returns of all elections by the people are made to the Secretary of State,” Cox wrote in his 11-page order. “The Election Code accomplishes this and the SEB has no authority to legislate otherwise.”

[destroyproject2025]

The Fight To Certify Elections Has Already Begun

The Republican Party isn’t trying to win your vote anymore. They’re trying to override it.

[usavotey]

US Democrats Challenge Georgia Election Rules in Trial

Georgia Judge to Review New Election Rules Amid Controversy A legal battle is brewing in Georgia over newly implemented election rules, as a state judge prepares to review a challenge from the Democratic Party. The dispute centers on changes made by the Republican-controlled Georgia Election Board, which Democrats argue were designed to undermine public trust in the upcoming presidential election…

[tjeromebaker]

Trump Allies Test New Strategy For Blocking Election Results In Battleground States | Election Certification Under Threat | 35 Rogue Election Officials Identified by CREW

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a report Monday night identifying 35 "rogue election officials" who are refusing to certify the November election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01_HKARXWOM August 15, 2024 | by Thomas Jerome Baker | CEO @Baker Publishing Company | Past-President TESOL Chile | Doctoral Student in Education | Member of Black Doctoral Network, Inc. | Member of Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities | https://linktr.ee/profesorbaker ** Disclaimer – The Baker Publishing Company has endorsed the…

[originalleftist]

Republicans WILL try to overturn it, it WILL end up at SCOTUS, and SCOTUS WILL give it to Trump if they think they can get away with it.

So how do we head that off?

First, the wider the margin of victory, the harder it will be to cheat. If it's a Florida 2000 situation, a few hundred or a few thousand votes in one state, they can probably find or make up some excuse to hand it to Trump, and most people will probably go along with it. That's a lot harder to do if it's clear that they'd have to overturn several states.

Anything that goes to SCOTUS, we need five of nine justices to side with Democracy. There are three liberal justices currently. Two of the conservatives justices are hopeless causes- Alito and Thomas are pretty openly coup supporters. Kavanaugh too probably. That means when a Harris victory is contested at SCOTUS, we need to convince two of Roberts, Coney-Barrett, and Gorsuch that overturning it is too far. The bigger the margin of Harris's victory, the more likely that will be.

We also MUST win both the House AND Senate. The reason for this is that the House and Senate certify the election results, and the new House and Senate are sworn in before the certification of the Presidential election. Which means if we lose either, Republicans in Congress can refuse to certify. This certification is what the January 6th insurrection was intended to prevent, and 147 Republicans voted not to certify the 2020 election results.

Finally, if worst comes to worst, unions and activist organizations need to be ready to call a general strike in the event of an attempted coup. Some unions made plans to this effect in 2020, though they were never used. The point of such a strike would be not to pressure MAGA (they won't care, and just see it as an excuse to deploy the troops), but to pressure Democrats to stand strong and not concede, and to pressure the few remaining "moderate" Republicans to do the right thing and uphold the Constitution.

have you seen anything about conservatives refusing to certify election results and sending the decision to scotus, who will most likely side with trump? i’m going to vote and i’m writing post cards to swing states and plan to help phone bank, but i’m not sure what to do if it comes down to scotus’s decision

I mean the conservatives refusing is a worry, for sure, upside most swing states, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada are controlled by Democrats (in their Sec of state offices) On top of which Georgia's Governor and Sec of State are the same Republicans who refused Trump's 2020 pressure to "find" votes

so basically, I'm not a lawyer, but if Kamala can get to 270 electoral votes it won't matter if Republican controlled states don't want to certify.

Hopefully it won't come down to the outcome in one state thats disputed, that a local Republican refuses to count votes etc, because we saw in 2000, Bush V. Gore what the court did

its worth saying though, Trump tried a number of law suits in 2020 to dispute votes, and in "Texas Vs. Pennsylvania" (Trump's ally Texas AG Ken Paxton sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to overturn their results) the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and upheld a lower court throwing it out

ALL! to say, if we win big, get lots of states in the bag, we don't have to worry, so we all have to work our hardest because we DO NOT! want to be in the danger zone of the election being down to 500 votes in a swing state and asking questions about what's a valid ballot etc.

[contemplatingoutlander]

If he loses the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump will likely lobby House Republicans to refuse to certify the results. This was not as much of a problem in 2020 when Democrats held the majority of seats, but with Republicans now holding a narrow majority, it could become a legitimate issue. However, Politico reports that a bipartisan group of House lawmakers have banded together to jointly pledge to certify the results of the 2024 presidential election, and the group so far includes six House Republicans. This means that, should these six Republicans keep their pledge to certify a win for Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump's allies would be unable to block the certification of the election given the current numbers in the House of Representatives. The bipartisan group, which was organized by centrist Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Don Bacon (R-NE), also includes Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR), Nick LaLota (R-NY) and Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY). Bacon said that the group's pledge was a reflection of traditional American values. “In America we respect election results especially once the courts and appeals work through the process,” he said. “We fight hard to win during campaigns and then respect the results when the votes are counted.”

Thank goodness for a handful of Republicans in the House who actually take their oath to support the Constitution seriously.

[gwydionmisha]

I'm begging you please come out to vote. Early if possible. Bring friends. Bring family. It really really matters.

Georgia reports record turnout as early voting begins in US battleground state

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Nobody

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 2, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 03, 2024

Today, Aaron C. Davis and Carol D. Leonnig of the Washington Post reported that there is reason to believe that when Trump’s 2016 campaign was running low on funds, Trump accepted a $10 million injection of cash from Egypt’s authoritarian leader Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. It is against the law to accept direct or indirect financial support from foreign nationals or foreign governments for a political campaign in the United States.

In early 2017, CIA officials told Justice Department officials that a confidential informant had told them of such a cash exchange, and those officials handed the matter off to Robert Mueller, the special counsel who was already looking at the links between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives. FBI agents noted that on September 16, Trump had met with Sisi when the Egyptian leader was at the U.N. General Assembly in New York City. 

After the meeting, Trump broke with U.S. policy to praise Sisi, calling him a “fantastic guy.” 

Trump’s campaign had been dogged with a lack of funds, and his advisers had begged him to put some of his own money into it. He refused until October 28, when he loaned the campaign $10 million.

An FBI investigation took years to get records, but Davis and Leonnig reported that in 2019 the FBI learned of a key withdrawal from an Egypt bank. In January 2017, five days before Trump took office, an organization linked to Egypt’s intelligence service asked a manager at a branch of the state-run National Bank of Egypt to “kindly withdraw” $9,998,000 in U.S. currency. The bundles of $100 bills filled two bags and weighed more than 200 pounds. 

Once in office, Trump embraced Sisi and, in a reversal of U.S. policy, invited him to be one of his first guests at the White House. “I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President al-Sissi,” Trump said. 

Mueller had gotten that far in pursuit of the connection between Trump and Sisi when he was winding down his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He handed the Egypt investigation off to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D C., where it appears then–attorney general William Barr killed it. 

Today, Brian Schwartz of CNBC reported that Elon Musk and other tech executives are putting their money behind a social media ad campaign for Trump and Vance, and are creating targeted ads in swing states by collecting information about voters under false pretenses. According to Schwartz, their America PAC, or political action committee, says it helps viewers register to vote. And, indeed, the ads direct would-be voters in nonswing states to voter registration sites.

But people responding to the ad in swing states are not sent to registration sites. Instead, they are presented with “a highly detailed personal information form [and] prompted to enter their address, cellphone number and age,” handing over “priceless personal data to a political operation” that can then create ads aimed at that person’s demographic and target them personally in door-to-door campaigns. After getting the information, the site simply says, “Thank you,” without directing the viewer toward a registration site.

Forbes estimates Musk’s wealth at more than $235 billion. 

In June the Trump Organization announced a $500 million deal with Saudi real estate developer Dar Global to build a Trump International hotel in Oman. 

In January 2011, when he was director of the FBI, Robert Mueller gave a speech to the Citizens Crime Commission of New York. He explained that globalization and modern technology had changed the nature of organized crime. Rather than being regional networks with a clear structure, he said, organized crime had become international, fluid, and sophisticated and had multibillion-dollar stakes. Its operators were cross-pollinating across countries, religions, and political affiliations, sharing only their greed. They did not care about ideology; they cared about money. They would do anything for a price.

These criminals “may be former members of nation-state governments, security services, or the military,” he said. “They are capitalists and entrepreneurs. But they are also master criminals who move easily between the licit and illicit worlds. And in some cases, these organizations are as forward-leaning as Fortune 500 companies.”

In order to corner international markets, Mueller explained, these criminal enterprises "may infiltrate our businesses. They may provide logistical support to hostile foreign powers. They may try to manipulate those at the highest levels of government. Indeed, these so-called 'iron triangles' of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat."

In a new book called Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World, journalist Anne Applebaum carries that story forward into the present, examining how today’s autocrats work together to undermine democracy. She says that “the language of the democratic world, meaning rights, laws, rule of law, justice, accountability, [and] transparency…[is]  harmful to them,” especially as those are the words that their internal opposition uses. “And so they need to undermine the people who use it and, if they can, discredit it.” 

Those people, Applebaum says, “believe they are owed power, they deserve power.” When they lose elections, they “come back in a second term and say, right, this time, I'm not going to make that mistake again, and…then change their electoral system, or…change the constitution, change the judicial system, in order to make sure that they never lose.”

Almost exactly a year ago, on August 1, 2023, a grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted former president Donald J. Trump for conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The charges stemmed from Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. A grand jury is made up of 23 ordinary citizens who weigh evidence of criminal activity and produce an indictment if 12 or more of them vote in favor. 

The grand jury indicted Trump for “conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the government”; “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified”; and “conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.” 

“Each of these conspiracies,” the indictment reads, “targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.” “This federal government function…is foundational to the United States’ democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.” 

The case of the United States of America v. Donald J. Trump was randomly assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who was appointed by President Obama in 2014 and confirmed 95–0 in the Senate. Trump pleaded not guilty on August 3, after which his lawyers repeatedly delayed their pretrial motions until, on December 7, Trump asked the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether he was immune from prosecution. Chutkan had to put off her initial trial date of March 4, 2024, and said she would not reschedule until the court decided the question of Trump’s immunity. 

In February the appeals court decided he was not immune. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, which waited until July 1, 2024, to decide that Trump enjoys broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as part of his official acts. Today the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Chutkan, almost exactly a year after it was first brought.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[deadpresidents]

Hypothetically what do you think would have happened if the january 6 rioters had gotten to pence or pelosi before they got safe?

At this point, I almost dread answering questions like this anymore because I know the kind of hate mail it will unleash for the next few days, but it's important to keep talking about what happened on January 6, 2021 since so many people are trying to normalize it. That includes many people whose lives were in danger that day, as well as the former President who tried to hold on to power by encouraging his supporters to launch a violent insurrection and is now referring to those who have been brought to justice for attempting a coup as "patriots" and "hostages".

I genuinely believe that there were people in that crowd who would have killed Vice President Pence, Speaker Pelosi, and certain Congressional leaders if they had reached them on January 6th. I think there are people in that crowd who were ready to hold lawmakers hostage. Why else did they have handcuffs and zip ties? To help the Capitol Police maintain order? (Oh yeah...that's right, thanks for reminding me: they violently attacked the police -- some even beat police officers with the "Blue Lives Matter" flags that they brought with them.) Now, I do not think that everybody who was at the Capitol on January 6th -- or even the majority of those who took part in the insurrection -- were willing to go that far. I think a lot of them got swept up in what was happening and went with the flow. That doesn't excuse what they did. The flow that they got swept up in was still a fucking insurrection, and anyone who took part in that deserves to be held accountable. But I think there were certain elements embedded throughout that crowd that were much more organized and prepared to fully execute their plans for a coup after disrupting the certification of the Electoral College votes.

I actually think Vice President Pence was probably in more danger than even Speaker Pelosi or some of the Democratic leaders because Trump was so actively calling him out in the days and hours before the insurrection. I think that's why Pence is so adamant now about not supporting Trump. I mean, think about how disgustingly loyal and subservient Pence was to Trump throughout those four years until basically the first few days of January 2021. But even as other Republican leaders are crumbling and offering their allegiance to Trump again in 2024, Pence is standing by his decision not to endorse or support Trump, and I think that's because he realizes that Trump absolutely almost got him (and his family, who were with him in the Capitol on that day) killed on January 6th. Shit, even Mitch McConnell has folded and endorsed Trump again despite the fact that Trump has spent the last three years not only insulting him but also making racist attacks and questioning McConnell's wife's loyalty to the United States all because Elaine Chao had the audacity to resign from Trump's Cabinet in the wake of the insurrection. Yet Mike Pence -- who spent the better part of four years following Trump around like Paul Heyman follows Roman Reigns...

...THAT same Mike Pence is steadfastly refusing to endorse Trump because he has personal experience about how real of an existential threat Trump is. Some of those people at the Capitol were very serious about following through on their chants to "Hang Mike Pence", and not only does Pence realize that, but he also knows now that Trump -- who refused to take actions that would have helped clear the Capitol more quickly -- said "he deserves it" when hearing about those chants.

That's what is so scary about the insurrection, its aftermath, and the Trump Republican Party's redefinition of what happened that day. It almost worked. They stormed the United States Capitol and invaded both chambers of Congress. They carried Confederate flags into the United States Capitol -- even the fucking Confederate States of America didn't successfully invade Washington, D.C. and plant their flag in the Capitol. They were willing to hurt and probably kill some of America's elected leaders. And the people who helped plan and instigate the events of January 6th have spent the three-plus years since then learning from their mistakes and figuring out how to be successful next time. And guess what? "Next time" is only a few months away.

[originalleftist]

Reminder that you need to vote Democrat not just for President but in every House and Senate race.

For one thing, the Senate approves judges, including Supreme Court Justices. The House mainly controls the budget.

For another, the House and Senate certify the Presidential election results, the new House and Senate are sworn in before the certification, and that means if Republicans win either, yes they can and will do what they wanted to last time and refuse to certify.

Vote Blue.

[trendynewsnow]

The Rise of the Voter Integrity Movement and Its Impact on Election Certification

The Evolution of the Election Integrity Movement The unfounded narrative of a stolen election, which incited hundreds of individuals to storm the U.S. Capitol in January 2021, has since transformed into a more organized and sophisticated movement. What began as the Stop the Steal initiative has now evolved into the so-called “voter integrity” movement. This new wave seeks to convince local and…