I don't fully understand what's happening. The constitution seems clear:

Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I know there was a voting rights act, but I never understood the constitutionality of it, quite, and it seems to have been pretty much eviscerated. Biden is talking about a sweeping voting rights bill. What, exactly, is within the purview of the federal government to dictate to the states how to run their elections?

for example, what if Arizona had simply said that there will be no voting
for the president at all.. the legislature will just, as per the constitution, appoint the electors as they please. That *feels* wrong but
I don't the details of why.

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
[email protected] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/14/2021 5:00 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:

I don't fully understand what's happening. The constitution seems clear:

Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I know there was a voting rights act, but I never understood the constitutionality of it, quite, and it seems to have been pretty much eviscerated. Biden is talking about a sweeping voting rights bill. What, exactly, is within the purview of the federal government to dictate to the states how to run their elections?

for example, what if Arizona had simply said that there will be no voting
for the president at all.. the legislature will just, as per the constitution, appoint the electors as they please. That*feels* wrong but
I don't the details of why.

The Constitution grants state legislatures the power to select
presidential electors any way it wants. They can hold a popular election
(as all states currently do)(1). Or the legislature can directly appoint
the electors. Or they can draw the names out of a hat if they feel like it.

Legislatures also have the power to control their own state elections --
for seats in the lege, for governor and other statewide elections, etc.

But the Constitution does allow Congress to override state legislatures
wrt elections for CONGRESS.

So if the state legislatures choose, they could hold separate elections
for Congress than for state offices and/or the President. Or, to save
money, they could do something similar to the way primary elections are conducted: you register as a member of a particular party, then you get
a ballot (or in some states a voting machine) for that party (as well as
for all "non-partisan" offices).

So they when you show up at a polling place, they could give you a full
ballot (including President and state offices) if you satisfy that
state's requirements (including voter ID), but a partial ballot if you
don't.

Article I, section 4, paragraph 1:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."

(1) Two states award their electors by congressional districts, with the
two "extra" electors (corresponding to two senators) going to the
statewide winner. The other 48 use winner-take-all.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Bernie Cosell" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

I don't fully understand what's happening. The constitution seems clear:

Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of >Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the >Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of >Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I know there was a voting rights act, but I never understood the >constitutionality of it, quite, and it seems to have been pretty much >eviscerated. Biden is talking about a sweeping voting rights bill. What, >exactly, is within the purview of the federal government to dictate to the >states how to run their elections?

for example, what if Arizona had simply said that there will be no voting
for the president at all.. the legislature will just, as per the >constitution, appoint the electors as they please. That *feels* wrong but
I don't the details of why.

/Bernie\

I think it's similar to laws that regulate businesses and how they hire employees, etc. The law doesn't force anyone to conduct a business - but if you do conduct a business, then you are governed by certain restrictions,
such as minimum wage, non-discriminatory hiring, etc. You still have the ultimate right to not conduct the business or to shut down the business
(with certain exceptions, of course).

In the same way, no state is forced to conduct an election for electors for president. The state can choose to appoint the electors or choose them
through some process that doesn't involve elections. But IF a state chooses
to allow voters to choose the electors, then they are governed by certain rules. In other words, the voting rights bill doesn't force states to hold elections - it just says that if you do hold elections, here are the rules
you have to follow.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Barry Gold <[email protected]> wrote:

} On 7/14/2021 5:00 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:
} > I don't fully understand what's happening. The constitution seems clear:
} >
} > Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
} > thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
} > Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
} > Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of } > Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Aha:

} But the Constitution does allow Congress to override state legislatures
} wrt elections for CONGRESS.

That's the part I didn't know.

} So if the state legislatures choose, they could hold separate elections
} for Congress than for state offices and/or the President.

Now I see -- I missed that second section in the Constitution.: I wonder if/when some of the deep red but purpling states will make use of that technique. I could see a three-way fork: congress.. they gotta obey
federal law; states they can do as the please, president the legislature
will simply appoint the electors, no voter participation at all.

Seeing Article I, section 4, paragraph 1 makes me wonder: I haven't looked through the SCOTUS decisions, but it'd seem that their limiting/messing
with voting rights legislation ought to be beyond their jurisdiction.

Thanks! /bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
[email protected] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/14/2021 8:00 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:

I don't fully understand what's happening. The constitution seems clear:

Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I know there was a voting rights act, but I never understood the constitutionality of it, quite, and it seems to have been pretty much eviscerated. Biden is talking about a sweeping voting rights bill. What, exactly, is within the purview of the federal government to dictate to the states how to run their elections?

for example, what if Arizona had simply said that there will be no voting
for the president at all.. the legislature will just, as per the constitution, appoint the electors as they please. That *feels* wrong but
I don't the details of why.

/Bernie\

It's not just the presidential election that can be affected, though.
People DO vote directly for senators and representatives. So any
restrictions on voting would affect those direct/federal elections and
thus Congress DOES have a vested interest in the way the elections are
handled and the Constitution does affect said elections.

Yes, Arizona can say there's no voting for president but they can NOT
say "this group can vote in November and that group can't" in some
arbitrary manner.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mike Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, Arizona can say there's no voting for president but they can
NOT say "this group can vote in November and that group can't" in
some arbitrary manner.

Again, under the 14th Amendment, a state can't restrict the right to
vote for anyone. And if they try it, they can lose seats in Congress.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Barry Gold <[email protected]> wrote:

The Constitution grants state legislatures the power to select
presidential electors any way it wants. They can hold a popular
election (as all states currently do)(1). Or the legislature can
directly appoint the electors. Or they can draw the names out of a
hat if they feel like it.

Legislatures also have the power to control their own state
elections -- for seats in the lege, for governor and other
statewide elections, etc.

Right. But the 14th Amendment changed that to an extent. For one
thing, if the right to vote, even for local officials, is abridged by a
state, then the state's Congressional representation must be reduced to
reflect the number of people actually allowed to vote. That could be
seen as a requirement that the people, rather than the legislatures,
have the right to vote for electors.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/15/2021 6:38 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Mike Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, Arizona can say there's no voting for president but they can
NOT say "this group can vote in November and that group can't" in
some arbitrary manner.

Again, under the 14th Amendment, a state can't restrict the right to
vote for anyone. And if they try it, they can lose seats in Congress.

Many states DO restrict the voting rights for felons and people
currently incarcerated, even if for a misdemeanor (although, as you
noted, that CAN affect the number of representatives) and that's why I
added the "in some arbitrary manner" qualifier.

They can't say "this group can't vote because they didn't go to college"
and "that group can't vote because they didn't get vaccinated" or any
other such reason that's not related to the election and that targets
specific groups (this is one reason why voter ID laws and other such
laws that ARE directly related to the election manage to get approved in
court, even though they do affect particular groups of people more than others.)

And, BTW, I'm not in favor of many of the laws in place or proposed that
"will stop voter fraud" but that make it harder for someone to vote so
my above paragraph about the laws isn't an endorsement of them but
simply a statement of why they do stand up to legal challenges. My
opinion of many of them is that they are finger-snapping (One person's
always snapping his fingers. Another asks him why. He replies, "It keeps
the elephants away." Second person says, "but we don't HAVE elephants
here." Finger-snapper replies, "See how well it works?")

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)