What legal routes could decide the presidency in battleground states?

Question

Accepted Answer

Legal Pathways for Deciding the US Presidency in Contested Battleground States

A contested US presidential election outcome could be determined through a series of legal and political procedures, potentially involving state and federal courts, Congress, and even a contingent election. These pathways are complex and largely untested, with historical precedents offering limited clarity on how such disputes would be resolved. The process begins with the certification of results, which can be challenged in state courts. If these state-level disputes escalate, they could eventually reach the US Supreme Court, as seen in the 2000 Florida election. Should neither candidate secure a clear majority of Electoral College votes, or if Congress cannot agree on the validity of electoral slates from a state, a contingent election under the 12th Amendment could be triggered, where the House of Representatives elects the president and the Senate elects the vice president.
Litigation Over Balloting and Counting Procedures

In closely contested states, challenges to voting and ballot-counting procedures could lead to significant litigation. This was a concern amplified by the fact that states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were not counting mail-in ballots until Election Day, initially favouring Trump in early results. President Trump himself stated his intention to go to the US Supreme Court and halt all voting, despite state laws requiring all votes to be counted. Such cases could mirror the 2000 election in Florida, where legal challenges ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which halted a recount, allowing Republican George W. Bush to prevail. The composition of the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority established by President Trump's appointment of Amy Coney Barrett shortly before the election, could influence the outcome of any cases reaching the high court.
Scenarios Involving Duelling Electors and Congressional Stalemate

A more complex scenario arises if a battleground state with a divided government, such as a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature, submits two different slates of electors. Legal experts have indicated uncertainty regarding whether Congress should accept the governor's slate or discard the state's electoral votes altogether. This situation draws parallels to the 1876 election, which led to the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887. Under the ECA, if both chambers of Congress disagree on which slate of "duelling electors" to accept, the act suggests that electors approved by the state's "executive" should prevail, though the interpretation of "executive" is debated among scholars. The ECA has never been tested in court, and its wording, described as "virtually impenetrable" by law professor Ned Foley, adds to the ambiguity.
The Role of the Vice President and Potential Contingent Election

Further complicating matters, Vice President Mike Pence, in his capacity as Senate president, could potentially attempt to discard disputed electoral votes if the House and Senate cannot reach an agreement. The ECA does not clarify whether a candidate would still need 270 electoral votes to win or could claim victory with a majority of the remaining votes in such a situation. If neither candidate secures the necessary majority of electoral votes, or in the event of a 269-269 tie, a contingent election would be triggered under the 12th Amendment. In this process, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation having one vote, while the Senate would select the vice president. This constitutional mechanism has not been utilized since 1824.
The Deadline and the Speaker's Succession

All potential election disputes, whether through the courts or Congress, must be resolved before the strict constitutional deadline of January 20. On this date, the term of the incumbent president officially ends. If Congress has not officially declared a winner by then, the Speaker of the House, currently Nancy Pelosi, would assume the role of acting president according to the Presidential Succession Act. This adds a critical time constraint to any legal or political maneuvering aimed at determining the presidency in a disputed election.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What legal routes could decide the presidency in battleground states?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends