Jan 4 Is Statutory Deadline For Electoral College Meeting – NOT Dec 14

[WARNING TO TEXAS: You submitted the following inaccuracy to the Court:

“However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020.”

The deadline is NOT Dec. 14. It’s January 4, 2021. See below.]

Front and center at the United States Supreme Court today is 3 U.S.C. § 2 – the controlling statute just relied upon by Texas in their monolithic original jurisdiction action to contest the 2020 Presidential Election. As explained in detail below, that statute – read in line with 3 U.S.C. § 7 – establishes January 4, 2021, as the hard federal deadline for Presidential Electors to meet, not December 14, 2020.

December 14th is wrong according to the proper statutory construction of 3 U.S.C. § 2, read in light of 3 U.S.C. § 7. Unfortunately, section 7 has been misconstrued repeatedly. You have to read section 7 in light of section 2, and only then does the January 6th date – set by 3 U.S.C. § 15 – for Congress to count the electoral votes make a perfect circle. The following analysis decodes the exact plan as to how all of these provisions work together, and they establish clearly that January 4, not December 14, is the hard deadline for the electors to meet in this Presidential Election cycle.

McPHERSON v. BLACKER REVISITED

We know that there is a hard deadline for electors to meet before January 20th, because that’s what the Supreme Court held in McPherson v. Blacker. And it’s a mistake to argue otherwise. In that case, the unanimous opinion established decisive precedent that the Legislatures may resume power of appointing electors, “at any time”, before, during, or after, a general election. But the Supreme Court also held that Congress has plenary authority over when the electors shall meet, and that the Constitution mandates that they shall meet and give their votes in each State on the same day throughout the nation.

The Supreme Court agreed that the Legislature had plenary power to allocate electors by district, instead of by a statewide winner take all popular election, but the Court also ordered Michigan to comply with the time set by Congress for their electors to meet and vote. And no matter what litigants and pundits are now saying in court filings and on TV, the time set by Congress is granite. This is crucial. If you argue to SCOTUS that only January 20th matters, you will get crushed. Mcpherson is clear precedent on this as well.

The good news is that the media has it dead wrong too: December 14th is not the hard deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 7. January 4, 2021 is the hard deadline. And here’s why.

Let’s start with the text of 3 U.S.C. § 2:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

Whenever 3 U.S.C. § 2 is invoked, it provides an extension from the federal election day statutory deadline, which was Nov. 3, 2020, this year, as codified in 3 U.S.C. § 1. But notice that section 2 contains no set deadline. It simply states that electors may be appointed – as the Legislature may direct – “on a subsequent day”. There’s no limiting date in this section.

We must look to 3 U.S.C. § 7 for the deadline:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.”

I have put “next following their appointment” in bold for a very important reason. This is because, had Congress meant to set the day – in each presidential election cycle – to be exactly on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, then the statute would not say “next following their appointment”, but it would end full stop, making the day certain each cycle, just as they did with federal election day in 3 U.S.C. § 1.

The term “next following their appointment” refers to the final appointment of all States. And if the extension of 3 U.S.C. § 2 comes into play, then the States who appointed electors on election day, and the States that did not, will obviously appoint electors on different days, which means that the day prescribed by 3 U.S.C § 7 can only be determined after all States have conclusively appointed electors.

If a State’s electors are subject to a controversy under 3 U.S.C. § 2, alleged by a failure to conclusively choose electors on election day, then the electors in each State should not meet until that controversy is resolved.

In which case, 3 U.S.C. § 7, in this election cycle, establishes January 4, 2021, as the absolute hard deadline for electors to meet, since section 7 requires the date fall on the first Monday after a Wednesday in December. This year, the last Wednesday in December is the 30th, so the first Monday after that is January 4th.

Now take notice that the very last possible day a Wednesday could ever fall on in December is the 31st, making January 5th the absolute hard deadline possible under our calendar, regardless of the election cycle. This is why January 6th can be set in stone via 3 U.S.C. § 15.

All of these sections must be read together, construed together. So, even if the States are intent on having electors meet on December 14th, it won’t matter at all, should even one state Legislature – whether by their own volition, or by Court order – invoke 3 U.S.C. § 2 in appointing even one elector. They will have to meet again in that case, in order to satisfy section 7.

The federal codes enacted by Congress by powers enumerated exclusively to that tribunal, concerning the day electors shall meet and vote, cannot be changed by rogue States. Even if all 50 States meet on Dec 14th, should even one different elector be appointed by even a partial division of just one State Legislature, on a later date, all electors will be required to meet and vote again. And the hard deadline for such a meeting is January 4, 2021, not December 14th.

24 Responses to “Jan 4 Is Statutory Deadline For Electoral College Meeting – NOT Dec 14”

  1. Leo, you say “since section 7 requires the date fall on the first Monday after a Wednesday in December. This year, the last Wednesday in December is the 30th, so the first Monday after that is January 4th.” Should not there be the word “last” preceding the first
    “Wednesday in December. This year…..” I get your point, but it does not seem to read right.

    I agree the all the sections must be read and construed together

    You have a “warning to Texas”! How can this best be communicated. Sidney Powell had a website where you could send messages, but I this is defunct.

    Thanks!

    • naturalborncitizen Says:

      No. The second Wednesday in December next following their appointment…which could be no later than Wed Dec 30th, and the first Monday following that is Jan 4.

  2. Will this error mean that the Supreme Court will not hear the case, or otherwise penalize the case?

  3. Charlie Hughes Says:

    Has your bill of complaint been filed? I searched the Courts docket for recent cases involving Pennsylvania but don’t find yours.

    • Charlie Hughes Says:

      A couple of FYI things:

      1) In an amicus brief in the Texas v. Pennsylvania filed by The Christian Family Coalition, they make a similar argument as yours. The states didn’t complete the election on the Election Day.

      2) In the amicus brief filed by the state of Arizona, footnote 1 says that Arizona is a party to a case pending before the Court and it is titled Donofrio v. Pennsylvania et al. But it is not on the docket yet.

    • naturalborncitizen Says:

      The Amicus by The Christian Family Coalition included the argument re 3 USC 1. I wish Texas had used it. That is the very heart of my case, and it’s a strong one bc of unanimous decision in Foster v Love. I also argued debasement of the vote in my case filed on Dec 3rd with Justice Alito, and Dec 4th with full court. I cited Reynolds four days before Texas, so I was thrilled they ran with that too.

  4. Interesting…

    MARK BRNOVICH Attorney General of Arizona used your filing in a footnote…

    “1 Arizona has been named in another original action pending in this Court, which is captioned Donofrio v. Pennsylvania et al. That original action names many of the same States as this case. Given that pending case, the State of Arizona’s brief would be limited to the points discussed below.

  5. In light of this argument, there is absolutely no doubt that the Legislature need to invoke their powers to direct electors to meet in December in order to be constitutionally protected. Their inaction is the problem.

  6. The Christian Family Coalition used 3 USC 1, as you say, and this includes Foster v Love. As we know Texas did not do this. Can the 3 USC 1 still be used as part of the Texas case??

    • naturalborncitizen Says:

      Texas would have to plead it. The Amicus isn’t a pleading. Our case is under 3 USC 1 iand simple to prove federal violation. Electors were not appointed on Election Day. Full stop.

  7. This is a contest of context and -semi-ambiguous wording. I see a logic error in your reasoning regarding “the second Wednesday”. It would appear to naturally be referring to the 2nd Wednesday in December rather than the second Wednesday following their appointment (presumably on election day).
    To illustrate, I’ve rearranged the clause to how it would have been written if its effect was to be what you assume. There is no perceivable reason to use the designation of “the second” instead of “the next” unless they were deliberately intending to allow another week to pass to allow for transportation to the place of meeting.

    “In December (next) the electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday or the first Monday after the next Wednesday following their appointment .”

    Under that wording what you assume to be true would be spelled out, but it does not appear that such an intent is spelled out by the more limited language of the clause. Consequently people feel free to not assume the intended timing that you articulate but to assume that “the second Wednesday in December” is what is meant.

    • naturalborncitizen Says:

      3 USC 1 gives a specific day in November, determined by the calendar, the first Tuesday after first Monday in November. Had 3 USC 7 been written, “first Monday after second Wednesday in December”, and the statute stopped there, then the two statutes would do the exact same thing, fix a date certain. But that’s not what the statute says. 3 USC 7 incorporates the uncertainty of appointment following from 3 USC 2, hence, the first Monday after second Wednesday in December “next following their appointment”… I’m not rewriting, I’m reading the words which are there. Other interpretations are reading it wrong, as if “next following their appointment” were not in it. It’s not difficult. It’s just the plain meaning. January 4 is hard deadline. Monday will happen but it doesn’t change the statute. The electors can meet again.

  8. […] Respecting the Constitution? « Jan 4 Is Statutory Deadline For Electoral College Meeting – NOT Dec 14 […]

  9. […] unless they resume power soon, the usurpation will be forever endorsed by them. As such, Texas had no standing to cure behavior […]

  10. […] my previous report, where I explain in detail why December 14th was not set in stone by 3 U.S.C. § 7. Most analysts […]

  11. […] my previous report, where I explain in detail why December 14th was not set in stone by 3 U.S.C. § 7. Most analysts […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: