Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

Chiafalo v. Washington does not apply. That case was regarding "faithless" electors.

What the Trump campaign is proposing is for a state to declare a non-compliant election, which as they believe would allow a state to regain their authority to name electors to represent the "true" intention and will of the people.

Lawrence Tribe sees the possibility embedded in Bush v Gore.

This is entirely the reason Mr Trump wants Barrett confirmed to SC because the expectation is once a state has sent a certified list of Trump loyalist electors (not representing the vote but of the will of the state) to Congress there would be of necessary be many lawsuits filed. Republican thinking would be that confirmation of politically partisan Trump loyalists to the SC would ensure any lawsuit would be abrogated and thus Mr Trump would have stolen an election.

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts to this coup, but some of the pieces have been played and others are now being played, and there remains some for future implementation.

While this may not cause a blip on some radar, it has registered on some legal thinkers radar.

So the question is, would you bet your life if some state or states attempts this ploy and it ends up in the SC, that the SC would sustain a challenge? I would have bet the ranch in 2000 the SC would not intervene in a vote count. I will not make that mistake again.