WEBVTT - Recount Efforts Could Impact Inauguration Date (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.840
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump's victory and the presidential race is scheduled to

0:00:02.840 --> 0:00:05.880
<v Speaker 1>be made official when the Electoral College meets on December nineteen,

0:00:06.360 --> 0:00:08.680
<v Speaker 1>but not everyone is ready to concede the Trump will

0:00:08.680 --> 0:00:12.040
<v Speaker 1>become president. Green Party candidate Jill Stein has taken steps

0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:15.920
<v Speaker 1>to initiate recount proceedings in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and

0:00:15.960 --> 0:00:18.720
<v Speaker 1>with recounts proceeding in two of those states, those efforts

0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>are now embroiled in litigation. Meanwhile, a Republican elector from

0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Texas has said that he will not vote for Donald Trump,

0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:27.800
<v Speaker 1>and some Democratic electors have said that they'd be willing

0:00:27.840 --> 0:00:30.520
<v Speaker 1>to vote for a different Republican to try to deny

0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:33.440
<v Speaker 1>Trump the candidacy in conjunction with Republicans who might be

0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 1>willing to abandon Trump. Here to talk about these attempts

0:00:36.680 --> 0:00:39.640
<v Speaker 1>to prevent a Donald Trump presidency is Ned Foley, a

0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:43.400
<v Speaker 1>professor at Ohio State University's more It's College of Law. Ned,

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:46.400
<v Speaker 1>Let's there's a lot going on here in all these

0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:48.760
<v Speaker 1>attempts where they'll make a difference as another story. But

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:51.720
<v Speaker 1>what's going on? And let's start with Michigan. What's going

0:00:51.720 --> 0:00:53.960
<v Speaker 1>on there? There seemed to be two lawsuits running at

0:00:54.000 --> 0:00:57.400
<v Speaker 1>the same time. Yeah, there are a lot of moving parts. Indeed,

0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:00.120
<v Speaker 1>it's difficult for anybody to keep it all straight. But

0:01:00.160 --> 0:01:04.040
<v Speaker 1>in Michigan, as I understand it, we've got orders from

0:01:04.080 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>the state court last night and somewhat conflicting order from

0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:12.119
<v Speaker 1>the federal court. Uh, and they're back in federal court

0:01:12.400 --> 0:01:15.080
<v Speaker 1>today to try to sort it all out. The state

0:01:15.120 --> 0:01:18.759
<v Speaker 1>court says, don't do the recount, and the federal court says, yes,

0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:22.200
<v Speaker 1>you must do the recount. And obviously the election officials

0:01:22.200 --> 0:01:25.279
<v Speaker 1>they are need to know which order to obey because

0:01:25.280 --> 0:01:30.000
<v Speaker 1>they're essentially conflicting orders. What do you really need in

0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:34.280
<v Speaker 1>order to request a recount or does it depend on

0:01:34.560 --> 0:01:37.640
<v Speaker 1>state to state? It is completely state to state, and

0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:40.280
<v Speaker 1>that is one of the things that we're watching here. Pennsylvania,

0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:44.280
<v Speaker 1>for example, has the most stringent rules in in terms

0:01:44.360 --> 0:01:47.200
<v Speaker 1>of how it's playing out this year in terms of

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:50.400
<v Speaker 1>getting the recount, and and Wisconsin it was the easiest

0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:56.360
<v Speaker 1>to get the recount going there. Well ned in Pennsylvania. Um,

0:01:56.400 --> 0:01:58.120
<v Speaker 1>that's the one of one of the that's the state

0:01:58.160 --> 0:02:02.200
<v Speaker 1>where the recount hasn't yet started, as opposed to Michigan

0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:07.960
<v Speaker 1>and and Wisconsin. So the Stein folks filed a lawsuit

0:02:08.120 --> 0:02:10.920
<v Speaker 1>to try to force that, and then first in state court,

0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:14.440
<v Speaker 1>then another in federal court. Right, So what's their claim

0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:18.040
<v Speaker 1>there in order to try to force Pennsylvania in court

0:02:18.120 --> 0:02:20.800
<v Speaker 1>to to do a recount. Yeah, that's a really important

0:02:20.840 --> 0:02:25.239
<v Speaker 1>point because technically they're not even seeking a recount per

0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:29.600
<v Speaker 1>se in Pennsylvania the way they are in Wisconsin and Michigan.

0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:34.400
<v Speaker 1>Recounts or administrative processes that the election officials do. But

0:02:34.480 --> 0:02:37.359
<v Speaker 1>what the Steint campaign filed is something called a judicial

0:02:37.480 --> 0:02:41.240
<v Speaker 1>contest of an election, which is a It's a different

0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:44.040
<v Speaker 1>procedure and it requires a higher burden of proof. You

0:02:44.080 --> 0:02:48.200
<v Speaker 1>have to claim that the election was illegal, uh or

0:02:48.360 --> 0:02:52.640
<v Speaker 1>rested on something unlawful about the ballot counting process. And

0:02:52.680 --> 0:02:56.000
<v Speaker 1>so they tried that in state court and then UH

0:02:56.400 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 1>realized they weren't going to be successful there essentially, and

0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:01.880
<v Speaker 1>so went to federal court in the hopes that the

0:03:01.919 --> 0:03:06.399
<v Speaker 1>federal court would order something like the an administrative recount

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:11.840
<v Speaker 1>that is occurring in Wisconsin, for example, ned the there

0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:17.359
<v Speaker 1>are more electronic machines in Pennsylvania and making it harder

0:03:17.440 --> 0:03:20.359
<v Speaker 1>to do a recount if there is an electronic machine

0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:25.360
<v Speaker 1>without a paper backup, and they do have um. In

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:29.520
<v Speaker 1>the state case filed on Stein's behalf, professor of computer

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:33.400
<v Speaker 1>science and engineering at the University of Michigan, j Alex Holderman,

0:03:34.080 --> 0:03:37.800
<v Speaker 1>said that hackers can cause the machines to provide any

0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:41.480
<v Speaker 1>result of the attackers choosing, and that the state's responses

0:03:41.520 --> 0:03:46.080
<v Speaker 1>to cyber security concerns have been patchy and inconsistent in

0:03:46.160 --> 0:03:51.520
<v Speaker 1>an election where we've seen cyber security problems and hacking,

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 1>does that help to make the argument? So one thing

0:03:56.480 --> 0:04:00.600
<v Speaker 1>is again, the results of this election wouldn't change in less.

0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:04.040
<v Speaker 1>All three of these states swept from Trump to Clinton,

0:04:04.640 --> 0:04:07.720
<v Speaker 1>so I think that's important to remember. So even if

0:04:07.720 --> 0:04:10.720
<v Speaker 1>something went awry only in Pennsylvania, it wouldn't affect the

0:04:10.760 --> 0:04:15.920
<v Speaker 1>overall outcome. Second, uh, my judgment as an election law

0:04:16.000 --> 0:04:19.279
<v Speaker 1>person is that Pennsylvania should have different kinds of machines.

0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:22.279
<v Speaker 1>They should have machines that have paper records, and that

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:26.280
<v Speaker 1>hopefully they'll fix that for the next time. So in

0:04:26.279 --> 0:04:28.680
<v Speaker 1>in essence, I think the computer scientists are right to

0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:33.359
<v Speaker 1>replace the machines. But in this year, which used the

0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:37.360
<v Speaker 1>machines that they had, there is no evidence of actual

0:04:37.480 --> 0:04:41.960
<v Speaker 1>hacking of the vote tabulating equipment. There certainly was attempts

0:04:41.960 --> 0:04:46.840
<v Speaker 1>to hack voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona, for example.

0:04:47.560 --> 0:04:52.040
<v Speaker 1>And in theory, you could hack a tabulating machine by

0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 1>a thumb drive, but you'd have to do it physically. Uh,

0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:58.680
<v Speaker 1>these machines, the tabulating machines are not hooked up to

0:04:58.760 --> 0:05:02.760
<v Speaker 1>the Internet the way the registration databases are. So as

0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:05.840
<v Speaker 1>I understand, what the computer scientists are saying is they're

0:05:05.880 --> 0:05:11.840
<v Speaker 1>identifying a theoretical risk, but no evidence this year that

0:05:12.160 --> 0:05:15.640
<v Speaker 1>the risk was anything more than theoretical. Well, now you

0:05:15.720 --> 0:05:17.760
<v Speaker 1>just said that, you know all you pointed out that

0:05:17.800 --> 0:05:19.920
<v Speaker 1>all three states would have to flip and that therefore

0:05:20.040 --> 0:05:23.279
<v Speaker 1>it's unlikely that these efforts are going to change the

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:27.320
<v Speaker 1>election result. But you know, the the electoral college vote

0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:30.719
<v Speaker 1>is not that far away. Litigation tends to take a while.

0:05:31.440 --> 0:05:34.880
<v Speaker 1>Is it possible that any of these lawsuits or you know,

0:05:34.960 --> 0:05:40.320
<v Speaker 1>recount procedures could somehow delay the electoral College I don't

0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:42.359
<v Speaker 1>think so. I mean, I think that is something to

0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:46.640
<v Speaker 1>keep one's eye on. But but in both Pennsylvania and

0:05:46.720 --> 0:05:50.000
<v Speaker 1>in Michigan, as I understand it, there's already been a

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:54.680
<v Speaker 1>certification of the election, which means the electors. The Republican

0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:58.240
<v Speaker 1>electors in those states have the piece of paper that

0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:02.599
<v Speaker 1>allows them to meet on Monday, December nineteenth and cast

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 1>official votes for presidents. So even if there was some

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:09.800
<v Speaker 1>of this federal court litigation still hanging over, I think

0:06:09.839 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 1>from a constitutional perspective, the required meeting on the nineteenth

0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:17.279
<v Speaker 1>can take place, and that's what matters for when the

0:06:17.320 --> 0:06:21.520
<v Speaker 1>electoral votes get sent to Congress in January, and wisconstant.

0:06:21.600 --> 0:06:23.720
<v Speaker 1>By all accounts, looks like they're going to wrap up

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:27.240
<v Speaker 1>in time at least by the so again, I think

0:06:27.240 --> 0:06:31.560
<v Speaker 1>there's a theoretical risk that litigation could cause a problem,

0:06:31.640 --> 0:06:34.000
<v Speaker 1>but at the moment, it doesn't look like that's going

0:06:34.040 --> 0:06:38.159
<v Speaker 1>to turn into a practical problem. Looking back at the

0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:42.839
<v Speaker 1>election recounts, as an expert in the area, NED, what's

0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:48.000
<v Speaker 1>your opinion of the value of them in this election, Well,

0:06:48.040 --> 0:06:51.680
<v Speaker 1>I think, uh, the the effort to do these recounts

0:06:51.760 --> 0:06:55.159
<v Speaker 1>is really a substitute for what in the field we

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:59.479
<v Speaker 1>call an audit. Audits are used to verify the accuracy

0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:03.440
<v Speaker 1>of the result, and they should occur in all elections. Again,

0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:07.720
<v Speaker 1>you need the paper record to do a gold standard,

0:07:08.200 --> 0:07:12.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, best practice audit and uh, and and and

0:07:12.920 --> 0:07:16.360
<v Speaker 1>when the Steined campaign filed for the recounts, it sort

0:07:16.400 --> 0:07:19.640
<v Speaker 1>of sounded like she wanted an audit more than a recount,

0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:21.720
<v Speaker 1>meaning she was saying, I'm just doing this to make

0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:23.720
<v Speaker 1>sure we don't have hacking, to make sure this is

0:07:23.760 --> 0:07:27.440
<v Speaker 1>the right result. She didn't say, I think the outcome

0:07:27.560 --> 0:07:30.920
<v Speaker 1>is in doubt and might change. Recounts are usually used

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:34.200
<v Speaker 1>when a candidate thinks that the result was wrong and

0:07:34.280 --> 0:07:36.560
<v Speaker 1>that the vote needs to be recounted because the outcome

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:39.560
<v Speaker 1>might in fact be different. So it's a little bit

0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:44.520
<v Speaker 1>unusual this year to be seen recounts invoked to really

0:07:44.520 --> 0:07:47.440
<v Speaker 1>serve the function of an audit instead. Now it's a

0:07:47.480 --> 0:07:49.600
<v Speaker 1>little hard to believe that there's no paper back up

0:07:49.640 --> 0:07:52.000
<v Speaker 1>and that the kind of things they're alleging in Pennsylvania

0:07:52.640 --> 0:07:55.120
<v Speaker 1>are true, that you know, and that we in fact

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:58.360
<v Speaker 1>have issues around the country about how we count votes

0:07:58.440 --> 0:08:00.880
<v Speaker 1>that are seems so serious. Why is it we've been

0:08:00.920 --> 0:08:03.320
<v Speaker 1>talking about this for decades? Why is it that it's

0:08:03.320 --> 0:08:10.320
<v Speaker 1>so difficult for states to have a verifiable election system? Money? Actually,

0:08:10.360 --> 0:08:14.120
<v Speaker 1>in one word, because after two thousand, we got rid

0:08:14.120 --> 0:08:17.560
<v Speaker 1>of those old punch card machines that produced the hanging chats.

0:08:17.720 --> 0:08:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Congress came up with money and in two thousand and two,

0:08:22.080 --> 0:08:25.560
<v Speaker 1>and at the time the great idea was actually use

0:08:25.680 --> 0:08:30.040
<v Speaker 1>computerized machines. Then we had the two thousand and four election,

0:08:30.120 --> 0:08:34.000
<v Speaker 1>and there was fears that the DeBolt company in particular

0:08:34.320 --> 0:08:37.440
<v Speaker 1>had ties to the Republican Party in the Bush campaign,

0:08:37.440 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 1>and maybe they'd be going into their own software and

0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:43.040
<v Speaker 1>trying to, you know, steal an election for their preferred candidate.

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:46.120
<v Speaker 1>Didn't happen, but those were the fears. And so then

0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:48.600
<v Speaker 1>then but the money had already been spent, and so

0:08:48.679 --> 0:08:51.640
<v Speaker 1>then the next question as well, we need paper ballots,

0:08:51.679 --> 0:08:54.040
<v Speaker 1>and some states had the money for it and changed

0:08:54.120 --> 0:08:58.720
<v Speaker 1>and other states didn't. So again one hopes that that

0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:03.920
<v Speaker 1>want to stay like Pennsylvania that's been relying on purely

0:09:04.280 --> 0:09:07.080
<v Speaker 1>computerized machines, that they'll switch once they got some money

0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:09.520
<v Speaker 1>for a new machine. The Constitution sets up a two

0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:13.439
<v Speaker 1>step process for presidential elections. First, there is a state

0:09:13.440 --> 0:09:16.640
<v Speaker 1>by state vote, each state voting separately to determine who

0:09:16.679 --> 0:09:20.400
<v Speaker 1>its electors are. Then those electors from each state go

0:09:20.520 --> 0:09:23.880
<v Speaker 1>and vote for the state's winning candidate in the electoral College.

0:09:24.240 --> 0:09:26.160
<v Speaker 1>This year, the electoral college is set to meet on

0:09:26.240 --> 0:09:29.760
<v Speaker 1>December nine, and a majority of the electors are supposed

0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:33.440
<v Speaker 1>to vote for Donald Trump, but some electors have said

0:09:33.480 --> 0:09:35.720
<v Speaker 1>that they don't feel bound to vote for him, and

0:09:35.720 --> 0:09:38.360
<v Speaker 1>that they don't want to vote for him. We're going

0:09:38.400 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 1>to talk about whether there's anything to this with Ned Foley,

0:09:41.920 --> 0:09:46.160
<v Speaker 1>a professor at Ohio State University's more It's College of Law. Ned,

0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:50.760
<v Speaker 1>how much freedom do electors have? Well, this is an

0:09:50.800 --> 0:09:55.360
<v Speaker 1>unknown question. Um. One constitutional argument is that they can

0:09:55.400 --> 0:09:57.679
<v Speaker 1>do what they want and they were set up to

0:09:57.840 --> 0:10:01.400
<v Speaker 1>act that way. But that's not what state laws say. Uh.

0:10:01.800 --> 0:10:06.920
<v Speaker 1>Many states have laws that require the electors to vote

0:10:07.200 --> 0:10:10.800
<v Speaker 1>on December nineteenth according to their their pledge, and they've

0:10:10.840 --> 0:10:14.720
<v Speaker 1>pledged to support their party's nominee and and so if

0:10:14.760 --> 0:10:17.760
<v Speaker 1>you follow state law, they don't have discretion at all.

0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:21.080
<v Speaker 1>But the U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of

0:10:21.120 --> 0:10:25.679
<v Speaker 1>the land, and so if these pledge laws are unconstitutional, Uh,

0:10:25.880 --> 0:10:29.800
<v Speaker 1>then then the electors can do what they want. Tell

0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:36.120
<v Speaker 1>us about the framers original intent of the electoral college,

0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:40.480
<v Speaker 1>whether it was as a check on the popular vote,

0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 1>as some are saying, Well, that argument can be made.

0:10:44.040 --> 0:10:47.960
<v Speaker 1>You can certainly cite Alexander Hamilton to that effect is

0:10:48.000 --> 0:10:51.240
<v Speaker 1>being done. But I also think it's important to remember

0:10:51.600 --> 0:10:56.880
<v Speaker 1>that the Framers design failed almost immediately. The Framers didn't

0:10:56.880 --> 0:10:59.640
<v Speaker 1>think we would have political parties. They thought that the

0:10:59.679 --> 0:11:04.000
<v Speaker 1>allowtors would exercise this deliberative judgment and picked the best

0:11:04.160 --> 0:11:08.960
<v Speaker 1>person without regard to party considerations. While right away political

0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:12.439
<v Speaker 1>parties formed, and we had our first kind of disaster

0:11:12.600 --> 0:11:14.880
<v Speaker 1>in the election of eighteen hundred where we had a

0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:18.480
<v Speaker 1>tie vote between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. There was

0:11:18.520 --> 0:11:21.400
<v Speaker 1>a constitutional crisis and that led to the Twelfth Amendment.

0:11:21.520 --> 0:11:25.079
<v Speaker 1>So the original vision was not well designed. And in fact,

0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:28.360
<v Speaker 1>James Madison, towards the end of his life in the

0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:31.480
<v Speaker 1>eighteen twenties looked back and thought that the lowest moment

0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:35.800
<v Speaker 1>of the Constitutional Convention in seven when when was when

0:11:35.800 --> 0:11:38.319
<v Speaker 1>they were thinking about the design of the electoral college.

0:11:38.400 --> 0:11:41.079
<v Speaker 1>They they saved it for the end of the convention,

0:11:41.160 --> 0:11:44.199
<v Speaker 1>and they kind of didn't have their best hours. So

0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:47.480
<v Speaker 1>you have to ask, should we judge the Framers in

0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:50.360
<v Speaker 1>seventeen eighty seven when they thought of the idea, or

0:11:50.400 --> 0:11:52.760
<v Speaker 1>in the eighteen twenties when they realized it wasn't such

0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:55.680
<v Speaker 1>a great idea after all? Well, a good idea or bad.

0:11:55.800 --> 0:12:00.480
<v Speaker 1>Let's speculate and think about what could have been here,

0:12:00.559 --> 0:12:03.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, just as a matter of procedure. If so,

0:12:03.160 --> 0:12:05.360
<v Speaker 1>let's say, you know, you've got some Democratic electors who

0:12:05.400 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>have said that they don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton,

0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:11.360
<v Speaker 1>they want to vote for a Republican alternative to Trump,

0:12:11.400 --> 0:12:15.480
<v Speaker 1>and join up with some Trump Trump electors who are

0:12:15.520 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 1>willing to reject him and come up with a majority,

0:12:17.559 --> 0:12:20.160
<v Speaker 1>or at least deny him a majority in the In

0:12:20.200 --> 0:12:23.079
<v Speaker 1>the electoral college, you have at least one Republican from

0:12:23.120 --> 0:12:24.720
<v Speaker 1>Texas who has now written up ed in the New

0:12:24.800 --> 0:12:27.280
<v Speaker 1>York Times saying that he's not going to vote for Trump.

0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:31.240
<v Speaker 1>Let's say they could cobble together a group to deny

0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:35.960
<v Speaker 1>him a majority in the electoral College. What happens then, right, Well,

0:12:36.040 --> 0:12:39.600
<v Speaker 1>first it would take thirty seven Republican electors to defect.

0:12:39.840 --> 0:12:43.400
<v Speaker 1>The Democratic defections aren't going to affect the Trump number,

0:12:43.440 --> 0:12:46.200
<v Speaker 1>which stands at three d and six, and it has

0:12:46.240 --> 0:12:49.360
<v Speaker 1>to get below the magic number of two seventies. So

0:12:49.440 --> 0:12:52.520
<v Speaker 1>it's quite speculative to think that that might happen. But

0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:56.520
<v Speaker 1>if it did happen, the first thing that, uh, we

0:12:56.559 --> 0:12:59.679
<v Speaker 1>need to realize is that Congress meets on January six

0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:03.280
<v Speaker 1>to receive the electoral votes from the states, and it

0:13:03.360 --> 0:13:07.760
<v Speaker 1>matters whether Congress receives one certificate from each state or

0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:12.240
<v Speaker 1>competing certificates. Has happened in eighteen seventy six, So if

0:13:12.240 --> 0:13:17.520
<v Speaker 1>there was defections from thirty seven electors against Trump, Trump

0:13:17.559 --> 0:13:20.360
<v Speaker 1>would use those state laws, the pledge laws, and say

0:13:20.400 --> 0:13:23.200
<v Speaker 1>that they avoided their right to be electors because of

0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:26.920
<v Speaker 1>violating the pledge. They need to be replaced. We're replacing

0:13:26.960 --> 0:13:29.199
<v Speaker 1>them with people who are going to follow the prep pledge,

0:13:29.440 --> 0:13:32.880
<v Speaker 1>and so we're gonna send a second certificate that is

0:13:32.880 --> 0:13:36.119
<v Speaker 1>true to the pledge. So the Congress would get these competing,

0:13:36.200 --> 0:13:40.520
<v Speaker 1>conflicting certificates and have to decide which ones to accept,

0:13:40.640 --> 0:13:45.320
<v Speaker 1>the faithless electors who vote against Trump or the substitute

0:13:45.320 --> 0:13:48.400
<v Speaker 1>electors who vote for Trump. And then it's a political

0:13:48.480 --> 0:13:52.040
<v Speaker 1>question what the Republican UH Senate and the Republican House

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:55.520
<v Speaker 1>of Representatives decides to do, and they might pick the

0:13:55.559 --> 0:14:00.280
<v Speaker 1>Trump UH certificates instead of the anti Trump certificates. About

0:14:00.280 --> 0:14:04.600
<v Speaker 1>a minute left, ned, what are the chances that we

0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:08.840
<v Speaker 1>are going to see someday the elimination of the electoral

0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:15.040
<v Speaker 1>college and president elected by the popular vote. Oh, that's

0:14:15.040 --> 0:14:17.760
<v Speaker 1>a political guest. I mean, the American people have wanted

0:14:17.800 --> 0:14:21.640
<v Speaker 1>to eliminate the electoral college for decades. Gallup poll has

0:14:21.760 --> 0:14:24.320
<v Speaker 1>consistently found that to happen. On the other hand, we've

0:14:24.360 --> 0:14:28.440
<v Speaker 1>never amended the Constitution to conform to that popular desire.

0:14:28.680 --> 0:14:31.400
<v Speaker 1>So I wouldn't hold your breath, but it is what

0:14:31.480 --> 0:14:36.520
<v Speaker 1>Americans want to do, well, Ned, So it's do you

0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:39.080
<v Speaker 1>think there's any possibility very quickly that you could get

0:14:39.080 --> 0:14:42.880
<v Speaker 1>a constitutional amendment to change this? It's that's if the

0:14:42.920 --> 0:14:46.400
<v Speaker 1>will is there. We have amended the Constitution in the past. Uh,

0:14:46.800 --> 0:14:50.120
<v Speaker 1>the twentieth Amendment changed the rules for presidential elections. We

0:14:50.240 --> 0:14:54.080
<v Speaker 1>got term limits after the Roosevelt era. So if if

0:14:54.080 --> 0:14:57.880
<v Speaker 1>the political will exists, it can happen. It just hasn't

0:14:58.280 --> 0:15:01.080
<v Speaker 1>manifested itself up to this point. Yeah. Well, our thanks

0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:04.480
<v Speaker 1>to Ned Foley of Ohio State Universities more It's College

0:15:04.480 --> 0:15:06.720
<v Speaker 1>of Law for being here on Bloomberg Law. That's it

0:15:06.800 --> 0:15:09.320
<v Speaker 1>for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Will be back tomorrow

0:15:09.560 --> 0:15:12.160
<v Speaker 1>thanks to our technical director Chris Tracomy and our producer

0:15:12.280 --> 0:15:14.680
<v Speaker 1>David So You're very welcome. Thank you coming up on

0:15:14.680 --> 0:15:18.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey Johnson. Carol,

0:15:18.560 --> 0:15:21.280
<v Speaker 1>what will you be talking about? Lots of things on

0:15:21.320 --> 0:15:24.160
<v Speaker 1>this what is it? But the one thing I'm really

0:15:24.200 --> 0:15:27.920
<v Speaker 1>interested in is how Americans are paying Apple millions to

0:15:28.000 --> 0:15:30.600
<v Speaker 1>shelter overseas profits. So it's one of the most read

0:15:30.640 --> 0:15:32.080
<v Speaker 1>stories on the Bloomberg So I can't wait to get

0:15:32.080 --> 0:15:34.800
<v Speaker 1>to that. Well, that should be very, very interesting. You

0:15:34.840 --> 0:15:36.880
<v Speaker 1>can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com

0:15:36.880 --> 0:15:39.720
<v Speaker 1>and Bloomberg BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website at

0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Big Law Business dot com for the legal community. Stay

0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:45.080
<v Speaker 1>tuned for all of that and more here on Bloomberg Radio.

0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:46.320
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg