How Many States will make Safe Harbor in 2020

According to law, any state that still has a legal case pending, disputing the election results, does not meet Safe Harbor.

Most media is reporting that only Michigan will not meet Safe Harbor.

Not sure how that is true, unless the law suite of four states by Texas has been dropped. As far as I can tell that case is still pending.

Washington — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a last-ditch lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four key states won by President-elect Joe Biden, alleging they unlawfully enacted changes to their voting laws that led to election irregularities and skewed the results of the presidential election.

Paxton, who is facing accusations of bribery and abuse of office, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the states' certification of presidential electors to allow for investigations into the alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by" the states' legislatures.

Paxton filed his suit against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan, all of which have certified their election results and formalized Mr. Biden's victory over President Trump. Mr. Biden was projected the winner of the presidential election November 7 and has begun the transition process, but the president refuses to concede.

Texas sues over election results in battleground states Biden won

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Louisiana has joined the Texas suit, I believe.

EDIT: Yes...from their AG:

a reply to: LookingAtMars

According to the Constitution any state that still has a legal case pending, disputing the election results, does not meet Safe Harbor.

Which part of the Constitution?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Louisiana has joined the Texas suit, I believe.

EDIT: Yes...from their AG:

AG from Alabama is chiming in as well

Tweet from Alabama AG

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If nothing else 2020 is showing us who the traitors in power all are.

Who the controlled opposition is and who we can trust.

Very few true Americans work in our governments or media from what I am seeing.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

According to the Constitution any state that still has a legal case pending, disputing the election results, does not meet Safe Harbor.

I don't know about that. Texas has file a motion for leave, in other words, "permission" from the court to bring suit. I don't think that qualifies as a pending case.

a reply to: jhn7537

They need to join the suit or butt out, imo. This just feels like lip service.

The ‘Safe Harbor Deadline’ is a statutory timeline that generally denotes the last day for states to certify election results. However, it is not unprecedented for election contests to last well beyond December 8.

“Justice Ginsburg recognized in Bush v. Gore that the date of ‘ultimate significance’ is January 6, when Congress counts and certifies the votes of the Electoral College. The only fixed day in the U.S. Constitution is the inauguration of the President on January 20 at noon.

“Despite the media trying desperately to proclaim that the fight is over, we will continue to champion election integrity until legal vote is counted fairly and accurately.”

Trump Legal Team Statement On “Safe Harbor Deadline”, Citing Left’s Hero RBG

It is not over till January.

RBG would agree.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jhn7537

They need to join the suit or butt out, imo. This just feels like lip service.

Yea, I would prefer them all to join up.. Would be nice to see TX, AL, LA, FL (possibly others) joining together.. I think the Supreme Court would give that a fair listen if that many state AGs step in like that, but who knows, maybe with just TX taking the reigns that's enough.

a reply to: Phage

The often-overlooked Article Ω.

a reply to: Phage

Which part of the Constitution?

The law part.

Edited the OP, does that work?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LookingAtMars

According to the Constitution any state that still has a legal case pending, disputing the election results, does not meet Safe Harbor.

I don't know about that. Texas has file a motion for leave, in other words, "permission" from the court to bring suit. I don't think that qualifies as a pending case.

It must be something like that.

Thanks for the info.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LookingAtMars

According to the Constitution any state that still has a legal case pending, disputing the election results, does not meet Safe Harbor.

I don't know about that. Texas has file a motion for leave, in other words, "permission" from the court to bring suit. I don't think that qualifies as a pending case.

It doesn't. Cases in federal court have no bearing on the safe harbor provision. Whether or not a state meets the safe harbor deadline depends only on what happens in that state.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 safe harbor provision applies if the state has provided, "by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors" (i.e., through laws enacted before Election Day) – for its "final determination" of any "controversy or contest" by "judicial or other methods or procedures," and such "determination" has been made "at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of electors."

If the determination is made "pursuant to such law" existing before Election Day, then that determination "shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes ... so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned."

Michigan has already made that determination and has sent its slate of electors to the Electoral College. Unless a current law suit in Michigan were to somehow overturn that determination, Michigan has met the safe harbor provision.

Personally, I think it's very unlikely that a Michigan State court is going to nullify the official count.

a reply to: 1947boomer

I doubt it too.

But in 2016 there were a few "faithless" electors, so who knows.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I feel I should correct my comment. I don't believe LA has done anything more than show support for TX.

a reply to: Phage

Beats me. Just some US Code that Congress is not obligated to follow because the Constitution gives no stipulation to yield to lower laws on elections, but likes to pretend they do. They think it will block a partisan action but gung ho on the impeachment killed any chance of “safe harbor” having any teeth this year.

The four states named in the Texas suit is enough to disrupt the 270 threshold now. So that case has to be resolved before Jan 6. And with Louisiana joining...arbitrary dismissal seems less likely.

a reply to: Ahabstar

So that case has to be resolved before Jan 6.

According to whom? In any case, you can expect SCOTUS to ignore it just as they did the Pennsylvania case. Because there is nothing there.

What does the Constitution say about frivolous lawsuits? The same thing that the courts do?

In answer to the question the OP asks, 49 states met the safe harbor deadline. Wisconsin was the only state to miss it.

www.supremecourt.gov.../docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Phage

Beats me. Just some US Code that Congress is not obligated to follow because the Constitution gives no stipulation to yield to lower laws on elections, but likes to pretend they do. They think it will block a partisan action but gung ho on the impeachment killed any chance of “safe harbor” having any teeth this year.

The four states named in the Texas suit is enough to disrupt the 270 threshold now. So that case has to be resolved before Jan 6. And with Louisiana joining...arbitrary dismissal seems less likely.

Can you point out where other states have joined the lawsuit?

supreme court