Who determines the outcome of the presidential election in a given state? Governors? Secretaries of state or boards of election superintendents? The courts? Fox News’ decision desk? Nope. The president wins a state when electors selected by state legislatures conduct a vote in their respective states on Dec. 14. Thus, ultimately, according to the Constitution, the state legislators wind up serving as the kingmakers in a disputed election.

View Comments (5)

In his 2005 book “Men in Black,” Levin noted that the reason the Supreme Court ruling on the Florida recount in 2000 was final was not because the courts are supreme over the electoral process. Quite the contrary, the Supreme Court was merely rectifying a mistake the state court made, because Democrats were the ones who involved the courts in the election process to begin with. But why did Al Gore ultimately accept the decision in Bush v. Gore?

“The Florida legislature could have (and, in fact, was preparing) to intervene and name a slate of electors if the Florida Supreme Court continued to interfere with the election,” wrote Levin on page 170. “The legislature, which was controlled by the Republican Party in 2000, had absolute authority under the Constitution to choose Florida’s members of the electoral college.”

Art. II, Sec. 1, §2 of the Constitution stipulates that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” the electors to vote for president. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the date of that vote, which, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §7, is the Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years. This year it is Dec. 14. . . .

“The Electors are to be appointed by each State, and the whole direction as to the manner of their appointment is given to the State Legislatures,” said Pinckney during a Senate debate. “Nothing was more clear … that Congress had no right to meddle with it at all; as the whole was entrusted to the State Legislatures, they must make provision for all questions arising on the occasion.”

Technically, this means that state legislatures could even appoint electors and completely avoid or cancel out popular election ballots we have today, at least for the president and vice president. This was the practice in some states in the early days of the republic. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution,” state legislatures choosing the electors themselves “has been firmly established in practice, ever since the adoption of the constitution, and does not now seem to admit of controversy, even if a suitable tribunal existed to adjudicate upon it.” . . .

By overriding the legislatures in how to properly conduct the popular elections that choose these presidential electors, the courts and governors have disenfranchised their voters. A Michigan court extended Election Day for two weeks. A Pennsylvania court, along with the Democrat secretary of state, essentially nullified signature verification for mail-in ballots.

Thus, if there is ample evidence of voter fraud that would be sufficient to alter the will of the people through this popular election, it is incumbent upon the state legislatures in those states to reclaim their authority over the Electoral College and rectify the fraud that has upended our election process.

(Excerpt from The Blaze. Article by Daniel Horowitz. Photo Credit: Unsplash.)

Share your comments on these state legislatures having the possibility to rectify voter fraud. . .