testtest

Civics Lesson: The Supreme Court's Role in Elections

Talyn

SAINT
Founding Member
This thread is intended to be informative, and not a debate, or poll/tally.

If an election is close, could SCOTUS make the final decision?

Excerpts from the above article.

"The short answer is yes, but only in very specific situations.

There are 538 electoral votes spread across the country. In order to win the presidency, one must receive a majority of these electors, which comes out to 270 votes. "The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed," the Constitution reads.

So, what happens if nobody gets a majority?

Hypothetically, two candidates could also tie at 269 votes each, something which has never happened. In fact, the last time that a candidate failed to get a majority of the votes was in 1824, when there were four candidates running, causing a splintering of the votes."


However, if the status of a state comes up like in the 2000 Presidential Election = Bush vs. Gore back in the day...

"So, how might the Supreme Court get involved? To answer this question, the Verify team spoke with Georgetown University Law Professor Susan Bloch. She said the first and only time SCOTUS got involved in a presidential election was in 2000.
On election night, the vote was too close to call in Florida. That one state would tip the balance and give somebody 270 electoral votes. The dispute dragged on for more than a month.

Democrat Al Gore wanted to continue the recount, whereas Republican George W. Bush wanted to stop the count. As the dispute continued into December, they were pushing up against a federal deadline. The Constitution mandates that a new president is inaugurated by January 20, no matter what.

Surprising some legal experts, The Supreme Court decided to rule on the legal challenges, announcing that the recount should come to an end. This decision paved the way for Bush's victory."


But then there was a 9-person Supreme Court. Now there is a 8-person SCOTUS that could result in a 4-4 tie. So what happens then?

"In that exceptionally rare situation, the decision would go to the House of Representatives. Each state gets just one vote for the candidate of their choice. That means the 53-person California delegation would get one vote, and the one-person Delaware delegation would each get one vote."

So that means the candidate that wins the majority of states will win the election.

The Civics Lesson for the day....

My .02
 
Last edited:
This thread is intended to be informative, and not a debate, or poll/tally.

If an election is close, could SCOTUS make the final decision?

Excerpts from the above article.

"The short answer is yes, but only in very specific situations.

There are 538 electoral votes spread across the country. In order to win the presidency, one must receive a majority of these electors, which comes out to 270 votes. "The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed," the Constitution reads.

So, what happens if nobody gets a majority?

Hypothetically, two candidates could also tie at 269 votes each, something which has never happened. In fact, the last time that a candidate failed to get a majority of the votes was in 1824, when there were four candidates running, causing a splintering of the votes."


However, if the status of a state comes up like in the 2000 Presidential Election = Bush vs. Gore back in the day...

"So, how might the Supreme Court get involved? To answer this question, the Verify team spoke with Georgetown University Law Professor Susan Bloch. She said the first and only time SCOTUS got involved in a presidential election was in 2000.
On election night, the vote was too close to call in Florida. That one state would tip the balance and give somebody 270 electoral votes. The dispute dragged on for more than a month.

Democrat Al Gore wanted to continue the recount, whereas Republican George W. Bush wanted to stop the count. As the dispute continued into December, they were pushing up against a federal deadline. The Constitution mandates that a new president is inaugurated by January 20, no matter what.

Surprising some legal experts, The Supreme Court decided to rule on the legal challenges, announcing that the recount should come to an end. This decision paved the way for Bush's victory."


But then there was a 9-person Supreme Court. Now there is a 8-person SCOTUS that could result in a 4-4 tie. So what happens then?

"In that exceptionally rare situation, the decision would go to the House of Representatives. Each state gets just one vote for the candidate of their choice. That means the 53-person California delegation would get one vote, and the one-person Delaware delegation would each get one vote."

So that means the candidate that wins the majority of states will win the election.

The Civics Lesson for the day....

My .02
Thanks Professor Talyn. 😎🤠😁
 
The 2000 election that eventually went to the SCOTUS, was fascinating to me. I like living through historical events that either never or rarely happened. Like President Nixon and VP Agnew resigning or Presidents Clinton & Trump being impeach, it's fascinating how the Founding Fathers and those that came after, set up procedures to handle these rare events.
As I remember and understand it, the 2000 election eventually went to the SCOTUS twice. The fist time when the Florida State Supreme Court ordered a Statewide recount (I believe), when the Florida Legislative branch had laws in place on how a recount would be handled. Apparently there was a conflict here that made it's way to SCOTUS. They ruled unanimously, that the Florida Supreme Court should reconsider their decision. When that court ruled the same way, it came back to SCOTUS a second time for their known decision. Further reading indicated, even if the SCOTUS ruled in VP Gore's favor, the Florida State legislator could have rewritten the voting recount law to be more clear, thus leading to more judicial review I'm sure.
I love how the processes of government exist to handle a crisis if one arises. Thanks for posting Talyn, it's very interesting.
 
it's fascinating how the Founding Fathers and those that came after, set up procedures to handle these rare events.

I love how the processes of government exist to handle a crisis if one arises.

The Founders were geniuses IMO, to set up so many safe guards.

But it is very telling that others want to dismantle those safeguards, like the Electoral College, and threaten to riot more if they don't get their way.

It's shame the public schools have replaced civics classes with others like..."How to get in touch with your inner self" and "How to take selfies" classes.
 
With the up most respect for members, moderators and SA I'll refrain from adding any additional comments to this thread and I too hope this thread is not removed.
 
The Founders were geniuses IMO, to set up so many safe guards.

But it is very telling that others want to dismantle those safeguards, like the Electoral College, and threaten to riot more if they don't get their way.

It's shame the public schools have replaced civics classes with others like..."How to get in touch with your inner self" and "How to take selfies" classes.
Three very astute comments here! And I love the two examples in the third comment! LOL, LOL!!
 
Given today's news I think we just got a little reassurance that any attempt to scam the election by a certain party , via mail in voting and vote harvesting may be smacked down by the Supreme Court.
Given today's news I think we just got a little reassurance that any attempt to scam the election by a certain party , via mail in voting and vote harvesting may be smacked down by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't count on it. IMO I believe the SC has been compromised.
 
Back
Top