Can Bush* "Run Out the Clock" With Legal Challenges If He Loses Nov 2nd?

[AndyTiedye]

Can Bush*'s lawyers just come up with one legal challenge after another,
and "run out the clock", forcing the election into the House, where
a Bush* victory is certain?

Kerry's only defense to such a strategy would be to beg for a ruling
from the Supreme Court, which would either refuse to rule at all, or
rule for the Republicans as it did in 2000.

OUR only defense against such a strategy is to give Kerry such a
landslide victory that no court would hear an attempt to overturn it.

[freetobegay]

1. I do not believe the the Supremes will get involved this time.

[AndyTiedye]

3. In That Case Bush* Still "Wins" By Running Out the Clock

Once it's in the courts, only a Supreme Court ruling can prevent it.

Bush* can't lose in the House. Each state only gets one vote,
so the small (mostly red) states reign supreme.

Even if the Dems retake the House :party:
we won't have enough states to win a Presidential vote in the House.:cry:

[krkaufman]

2. Not that he's listening, but I would highly recommend *against* this tack.

[shraby]

4. I would surmise that if there is a winner

even though there are legal challenges, that the winner will take office on schedule and the challenges will go on until something is decided.

[Nicholas_J]

5. If Kerry wins, BUsh running out the clock favors KERRY

If Kerry wins the electoral college, running out the closk will mean that in early December, all vates must be sent into the electoral college for certification AS IS. Unless they win some of their challenges and get votes overturned in states and reverse the electoral votes awarded to Kerry,
challenging the results and running out the closk means that eventually the votes go in as cast, and if Kerry wins, Kerry wins.

This is how Bush won in 2000. he won the electoral college and ran out the clock on the Democratic challenges and appeals. Running out the clock will not help Bush unless he wins the electoral college again and loses the popular vote.

If he loses and runs out the clock, it doesnt invalidate the election results. He doesnt get to stay president if he loses and Kerry wins just because he opposes the results of the election. IF the closk runs out while appealss are running, the elections results stand as valid.

[AndyTiedye]

6. The Difference Being that the Most State's House Delegations are Repub

so if Gore had kept up his legal challenges, he would have ultimately
lost in the House.

Running out the clock gives it to the Repubs, because there are more
red states than blue states.

[Nicholas_J]

7. Even the state legislatures cannot decide

That Bush won the election if the numbers do not state so. The decisiona all must be made by the courts as the legislatures do not have the right to simply disenfrnchise the voters. And the in the end it is the Governor of the state who must decide to either hold back all of the votes of his state disenfranchising the entire state and all of its voters, or must send up the votes as the stand in early December.

As FLORIDA was the only state that mattered in 2000, only the swing states will matter in 29004. Whereever Kerry wins, the states have only two options, certify the election in the state as it stands, or exclude your entire state from participating in the election. In 2000, no state would dare do that. No state will dare hold back all of its electors in order to give Bush the election. This would likely hit the Supreme Ct immediately and no one on the court will approve of a state simply not sending up its votes because they want the president to remain in office. If your assumtion was correct, the Republicans would not even be challenging Democrati votes right now, they would simply do what you are stating, wait until after the election, challenge the vote, and then tell the republican legislatures to not send up the states votes where Kerry won in order to give Bush the White House. It is in fact illegal to do so unless, the courts indicate that there is a problem with the elections. Not the White House. Thise votes MUST be sent up to the electoral college for certification by December. If not, they must have legitimate reasons for doing so under state laws, and as noted in 2000, there was no compelling legal reason to do so. THe legislatures must have a LEGAL basis for witholding the electors, not a political one.

[AndyTiedye]

8. The Florida Legislature Could Have Handed Florida to Booosh...

...and they were prepared to do so, if the Supreme Court had not
done the deed instead.

The same is theoretically possible in Ohio.

If the governor cooperates, and the state constitution does not
further constrain it, a state legislature can do whatever it
wants with their state's electoral votes.

[Nicholas_J]

9. Not in the case of a clear WIN

in the states. Theoretically, the electors can all decide to support Bush, practically, they woulde not do so. SO far, only one elector who is a Republican, Chuck Robb, has indicated that he will not cast his vote for BUSH in West Virginia, but also not for Kerry. He will cast it for someone else, like Cheney, But right now the only case where an elector will go against the election as indicated is Robb. And that causes problems for Bush in W. Virginia. The state of lLorida was omnly prepared give Bush the vote was because accoring to count, he won it. They would in no way have cast the state to Bush had the numbers stated that he lost it. The political danger to themselves is simply far too great. The reason that this has never happened during the last 200 odd years of American history is that there are too many legal checks to prevent it from being done. There have been numerous times in which both Democrats and Republicans have been in charge of all houses, and it has not occurred. The state legislatures constitutionally can only charge the electoors to act in a certain manner if there is an overriding legal decision to do so. On top of that, and elector can simply decide not to follow the recommendation of the legislature. As most of the states have democratic Governors, who make the final decision to certify the electors. You have to remember as well, the electors are selected by the voters, there are equal numbers of Democratic and Republican electors selected before the election, if the Democrat wins the state, the electors that are awarded to the state are ALL democratic electors. The only role the state legislature has is in certifying those electors. If Kerry wins a states electoral vote, all of the electors from that state will be democratic electors. The only thing the legislature does is certify them, If it fails to do so, the entire state is killed. Only the swing states count and the swing states do not all have Republican legislatures. In U.S. history, no legislature has voted against the electors selected by the public. In the entire history of the U.S. there have only been ten faithless electors.

Again if Kerry wins the electoral college, he wins the electoral college, IF Bush runs out the clock, his legal reasons for opposing the election results vanish completely. Your argument about him running out the closk is completely separate from your argument that the state legislatures will suddenly decide to not certify the electors on December 13th. If Bush runs out the clock, his legal arguments are ended, lost. At that point the legislatures have no justifiable legal reason for opposing the slate of electors as seleted by the voters, whichs is what they woulde actually be doing by nit certifying the electors selected by the public. THey would simply be excluding their entire state from the elections of 2004. Theoretically possible. maybe, implausible, most likely.
Running out the clock...eliminates all legal challenges to the election.