Thomas Massie's Statement on Congressional Vote Regarding Presidential Electors

[Matt Collins]

Just e-mailed out from his office:

Joint Statement Concerning January 6 Attempt to Overturn the Results of the Election

​

Washington, DC- Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), Ken Buck (R-Colo.), Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Tom McClintock (R-Cal.), Chip Roy (R-Texas) released the following statement concerning the January 6 attempt to overturn the results of the election.


“We, like most Americans, are outraged at the significant abuses in our election system resulting from the reckless adoption of mail-in ballots and the lack of safeguards maintained to guarantee that only legitimate votes are cast and counted. It is shameful that between both chambers of the U.S. Congress, we have held precisely one hearing on election integrity since Election Day.


The people cannot trust a system that refuses to guarantee that only legal votes are cast to select its leaders. The elections held in at least six battleground states raise profound questions, and it is a legal, constitutional, and moral imperative that they be answered.


But only the states have authority to appoint electors, in accordance with state law. Congress has only a narrow role in the presidential election process. Its job is to count the electors submitted by the states, not to determine which electors the states should have sent.


The text of the United States Constitution, and the Twelfth Amendment in particular, is clear. With respect to presidential elections, there is no authority for Congress to make value judgments in the abstract regarding any state’s election laws or the manner in which they have been implemented. Nor does Congress have discretion to disqualify electors based on its own finding that fraud occurred in that state’s election. Congress has one job here: to count electoral votes that have in fact been cast by any state, as designated by those authorized to do so under state law.


As of this moment, not a single state has submitted multiple conflicting slates of electoral votes. In other words, every state has sent either (a) Biden electors, or (b) Trump electors. Of the six states as to which questions have been raised, five have legislatures that are controlled by Republicans, and they all have the power to send a new slate of electoral votes to Congress if they deem such action appropriate under state law. Unless that happens between now and January 6, 2021, Congress will have no authority to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.


To take action otherwise – that is, to unconstitutionally insert Congress into the center of the presidential election process – would amount to stealing power from the people and the states. It would, in effect, replace the electoral college with Congress, and in so doing strengthen the efforts of those on the left who are determined to eliminate it or render it irrelevant.


From a purely partisan perspective, Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years. They have therefore depended on the electoral college for nearly all presidential victories in the last generation. If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes—based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election—we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024.


There is one and only one path to victory for President Trump on January 6, 2021, and it depends on state legislatures certifying Trump electors in the states at issue, pursuant to state law and the U.S. Constitution, and based on a finding that votes lawfully cast in November were sufficient to produce a Trump victory. If they believe there was fraud—and if they believe that such fraud affected the outcome of the election—they must, as a body, convene immediately and send us that information, along with certified electoral votes cast by a Trump slate of electors. Absent such action, there is not a constitutional role for Congress to change the outcome of any state’s vote.


The text of the Constitution is clear. States select electors. Congress does not. Accordingly, our path forward is also clear. We must respect the states’ authority here. Though doing so may frustrate our immediate political objectives, we have sworn an oath to promote the Constitution above our policy goals. We must count the electoral votes submitted by the states.”

 

[CaptUSA]

Good on Massie. I’m sure it will not sit well, but this is not the appropriate forum to address the steal.

 

[Kotin]

Massie is correct as usual. The state legislatures need to grow backbones.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Mike Lee has apparently already acknowledged Biden as "President-Elect".

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Massie is incorrect if he thinks state legislatures can change the rules they previously put in place regarding how electors are appointed (i.e., the popular vote determines the electors) after an election has taken place. That's what totalitarian governments do.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Massie is incorrect if he thinks state legislatures can change the rules they previously put in place regarding how electors are appointed (i.e., the popular vote determines the electors) after an election has taken place. That's what totalitarian governments do.

Nobody has suggested changing any rules.

legislatures...all have the power to send a new slate of electoral votes to Congress if they deem such action appropriate under state law.

If they believe there was fraud—and if they believe that such fraud affected the outcome of the election—they must, as a body, convene immediately and send us that information, along with certified electoral votes cast by a Trump slate of electors.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If they believe there was fraud—and if they believe that such fraud affected the outcome of the election—they must, as a body, convene immediately and send us that information, along with certified electoral votes cast by a Trump slate of electors.ules.

And they're supposed to make this determination in two days? Show trials take more time.

 

[Kotin]

Massie is incorrect if he thinks state legislatures can change the rules they previously put in place regarding how electors are appointed (i.e., the popular vote determines the electors) after an election has taken place. That's what totalitarian governments do.

The laws were changed by courts and state officials like the secretary of states.. the consent decree signed by the Secretary of State in Georgia is a Perfect example of going outside the legislature to change election law to favor fraud

and besides that, the state legislators control the slates of electors. There were rival slates of electors certified and the legislators can certify the trump electors or decertify the state electors altogether.. there have been hearings going on in state legislators in most of the contested states.. this isn’t new to them

 

[Swordsmyth]

This is just wrong, the founders didn’t include Congress in the EC system to just be ceremonial and all historical precedent testifies to that.

 

[familydog]

Massie is correct as usual. The state legislatures need to grow backbones.

What exactly is the Pennsylvania legislature suppose to do? The executive branch will do anything and everything to ensure a Biden victory, the out-of-control Pennsylvania Supreme Court will rule against anyone with an R next to their name and the US Supreme Court refuses to take up cases involving Pennsylvania.

Just stating "grow a backbone" is not helpful.

Let's suppose the Pennsylvania legislature certifies its own electors in favor of Trump. Then what? Do we wait for a court system clearly intent on seeing Trump lose to rule against them? Then we are back to square one.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What exactly is the Pennsylvania legislature suppose to do? The executive branch will do anything and everything to ensure a Biden victory, the out-of-control Pennsylvania Supreme Court will rule against anyone with an R next to their name and the US Supreme Court refuses to take up cases involving Pennsylvania.

Just stating "grow a backbone" is not helpful.

Let's suppose the Pennsylvania legislature certifies its own electors in favor of Trump. Then what? Do we wait for a court system clearly intent on seeing Trump lose to rule against them? Then we are back to square one.

Good point.

I see their position as a defense of Federalism, the Constitution, and the electoral college.

On the other hand, at what point are honest elections defended? The neo-Marxians are more than happy to be in charge of counting the votes in the States, with nobody able to question them.

 

[Invisible Man]

This is just wrong, the founders didn’t include Congress in the EC system to just be ceremonial and all historical precedent testifies to that.

What are some examples of historical precedent you have in mind?

 

[Invisible Man]

Let's suppose the Pennsylvania legislature certifies its own electors in favor of Trump. Then what? Do we wait for a court system clearly intent on seeing Trump lose to rule against them? Then we are back to square one.

Rule against them in what specifically?

The Pennsylvania legislature theoretically could have changed it's election laws back before this election replacing the process that it has, which resulted in the appointment of Biden supporting electors, with a process where the state legislature would appoint electors directly, empowering themselves to appoint a Trump slate without having to face the risk of voters of the state going a different way.

But they didn't do that.

And if they had done it, I suspect it would have been an unpopular move that would have resulted in a lot of losses for the legislators who voted to do that. The courts wouldn't have stopped them, but their own constituents would have punished them for it.

But for the legislature to keep the process of letting voters decide the state electors in place up through the election, and then to change it after the fact in order to get a different result? That doesn't pass the red face test.

And then to go even farther than that, and have the state send a slate of electors that was chosen according to the process that the state legislature determined, and that the state legislature did nothing to alter after it was selected, and to wait until the day these electors who have already been appointed and certified are supposed to be counted--merely counted and nothing else--and to expect Congress to somehow do something to change the results at that point in time? I don't get how people take this idea seriously. If Congress did have some legitimate duty to outlaw the process by which Pennsylvania chose its electors through some act of legislation, on the grounds that it allowed too much fraud and thus undermined the guarantee of a Republican form of government or something of that sort, then shouldn't they have done that before now? Rather than waiting until the day they count the votes and mix that up in this vote counting process?

 

[familydog]

Good point.

I see their position as a defense of Federalism, the Constitution, and the electoral college.

Surely Massie understands that we do not live under an actual federal republic. Political parties and judges advocate for State sovereignty only when it suits their political agendas.

I think Massie is the best person in Washington DC. I like him even more than Rand. However, we have to be realistic about the world that we live in. The reason the right/libertarians general lose is that they live in a world that does not exist. They want to play by rules that the other side ignores.

The left uses knives and swords to play football. Meanwhile, the right screams about the left ignoring the rules of the game while they lay on the ground eviscerated.

The left and right establishment must be smashed at all cost.

 

[familydog]

Rule against them in what specifically?

The US Supreme Court would surely rule that the Pennsylvania legislature does not have authority to ignore the electors sent to the college by the governor.

The Pennsylvania legislature theoretically could have changed it's election laws back before this election replacing the process that it has, which resulted in the appointment of Biden supporting electors, with a process where the state legislature would appoint electors directly, empowering themselves to appoint a Trump slate without having to face the risk of voters of the state going a different way.

1) Governor Wolf is one of the most liberal governors in the country. He would not sign off on any legislation that would give Trump an advantage. 2) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is one of the most politically motivated courts in the country. It would simply overturn any law that would not help Democrats. 3) The Secretary of State has unilaterally changed election laws to Biden's advantage. There is nothing to say she wouldn't do it under this theoretical scenario.

But yeah, some of this is on the Republican controlled legislature for passing the unconstitutional and ridiculous mail-in voting law a couple of years ago.

And if they had done it, I suspect it would have been an unpopular move that would have resulted in a lot of losses for the legislators who voted to do that. The courts wouldn't have stopped them, but their own constituents would have punished them for it.

The legislature has been controlled by Republicans for three decades. I disagree that this would up and change that.

But for the legislature to keep the process of letting voters decide the state electors in place up through the election, and then to change it after the fact in order to get a different result? That doesn't pass the red face test.

It only fails the test if you hate Trump.

If Congress did have some legitimate duty to outlaw the process by which Pennsylvania chose its electors through some act of legislation, on the grounds that it allowed too much fraud and thus undermined the guarantee of a Republican form of government or something of that sort, then shouldn't they have done that before now? Rather than waiting until the day they count the votes and mix that up in this vote counting process?

Ah, yes. The "too late" argument.

You can't do anything about it before the election because no harm was done.

You can't do anything about it right after the election because you don't have evidence of...whatever.

You can't do anything at the end of November because you waited to long to sue.

You can't do anything in December because you don't have standing.

You can't do anything in January because the issue is moot.

 

[Invisible Man]

You can't do anything about it before the election because no harm was done.

I don't understand this claim.

Of course you can do something about it before the election. If you want to change election laws, then before an election is the only reasonable time to do it. Not wait until after an election and then try to change the election laws retroactively because you didn't like the result.

If the people of Pennsylvania don't like the way their current election laws played out last year because they allowed too much fraud, then their legislature can and should replace those laws with new ones that will take effect in future elections. If they really want to legislate that the states' electors should just be decided directly by the state legislature without a statewide vote by the citizenry (which, let's be honest, would be very a very unpopular law even if they could get it passed), then they can do that for 2024.

But in 2020, that's not the process for choosing electors that had at that time been legislated by the state legislature. The process that had been legislated by them was the one that resulted in Biden winning the state's electors.

 

[Invisible Man]

The legislature has been controlled by Republicans for three decades. I disagree that this would up and change that.

Then your quarrel is with the state legislature. They could have changed the election law to something more in line with what you would like any time before last November's election. And they did not. The result is that the electors appointed by Pennsylvania in such manner as the legislature thereof directed was a slate that voted for Biden.

 

[Kotin]

One thing I do think that congressional members can do is to support an independent and thorough investigation into the clear voter fraud that has taken place.. It is undeniable. Congress could definitely help shed light on that and put more pressure on state legislators to do something..

It would not take but one or two hearings in congress with Trump's lawyers and their evidence and witness testimony.. They should let the evidence be heard nationwide so that the courts and legislators look like the cowards they are for never touching the merit of these cases but instead using standing or other procedural bullshit to pass the buck or outright protect blatant voter fraud.

There is overwhelming evidence in all these contested states to flip this for trump. Trump won massively.

That is why they had to cheat so blatantly. Biden did not get the highest voter turnout in over 120 years and more votes than obama and trump.. he inspires NOBODY. That alone is all you need to know. this was stolen and it must be proven and they must be brought to justice.

 

[CaptUSA]

It would not take but one or two hearings in congress with Trump's lawyers and their evidence and witness testimony.. They should let the evidence be heard nationwide so that the courts and legislators look like the cowards they are for never touching the merit of these cases but instead using standing or other procedural bullshit to pass the buck or outright protect blatant voter fraud.

So, I can agree with your sentiments, but I think the right place for that to happen would be at the State legislature level. The states choose their electors. And the State legislatures - not the courts - are responsible for the electoral process. Which is why the courts are always loathe to get involved in election cases, except to close them.

The problem this year, of course, is that nothing is normal. We knew going into this election that all the rules had changed in every state. We also knew that in order to have confidence in the vote, we'd need to do a thorough analysis. But once the press got their preferred result, the idea of doing an analysis became a witch hunt. Total BS, but the State legislators didn't force the issue. Complete weakness on their part, but what would you expect from politicians?

At this point, it is what it is. Government declared an emergency, took away your rights, stole your children's wealth, and instituted a system to install their preferred politicians. And if people do not hold their local politicians accountable, it will continue to happen.

 

[Kotin]

So, I can agree with your sentiments, but I think the right place for that to happen would be at the State legislature level. The states choose their electors. And the State legislatures - not the courts - are responsible for the electoral process. Which is why the courts are always loathe to get involved in election cases, except to close them.

The problem this year, of course, is that nothing is normal. We knew going into this election that all the rules had changed in every state. We also knew that in order to have confidence in the vote, we'd need to do a thorough analysis. But once the press got their preferred result, the idea of doing an analysis became a witch hunt. Total BS, but the State legislators didn't force the issue. Complete weakness on their part, but what would you expect from politicians?

At this point, it is what it is. Government declared an emergency, took away your rights, stole your children's wealth, and instituted a system to install their preferred politicians. And if people do not hold their local politicians accountable, it will continue to happen.

I agree 100%.. just commenting on any role congress could have.. and it would just be to expose the information widely so people and state legislatures are pressured to stand up and do something.