General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Don't even think of not certifying votes or breaking the law in the next election"...
"...or you will find yourself behind bars."
I would like to hear the Attorney General of the United States give a similar warning to these folks talking about not certifying the next election.
They should understand that there will be dire consequences for them if they break our election laws.
If nothing else, it would plant the seed and let the people know what's going on behind the scenes.

bucolic_frolic
(48,586 posts)So much of LE is to let the rats run until you have them all.
gab13by13
(26,378 posts)If they were warned they cant claim ignorance of the law.
Ohio Joe
(21,894 posts)It failed as a defense last time, it will fail again.
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)Of the consequences for failing to certify.
Which makes sense since that is a state, not federal crime.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Think. Again.
(21,382 posts)bullimiami
(14,016 posts)Bettie
(17,719 posts)look political....can't have that.
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)There are other actions that could be either state or federal crimes.
Most swing states have warned their election officials of the consequences of failing to complete their duties and obstructing the certification (its all covered in the CREW report).
If DOJ issued the warning you recommend, it could actually have the reverse effect and increase threats and harassment of honest election workers.
That is the warning Id like to see- harass or threaten elections workers, go to jail.
kentuck
(113,200 posts)Would that not violate federal election laws also?
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)The Constitution says each state shall appoint electors in the manner to be determined by the state legislature.
So its a constitutional requirement that a state appoint electors, but how they do it is up to each state.
The only federal law I can see that would apply would be the new, revised Electoral Count Act, but AFAIK, that doesnt have penalties for election officials, it only dictates how the federal government intervenes and proceeds in cases where the states determination of its slate of electors is unresolved, primarily because of candidate challenges, not failure to certify.
kentuck
(113,200 posts)So long as they are in the majority?
Then, I guess it is already fixed.
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)Sending fraudulent electors is indeed both a state and federal crime, but thats not what the topic was about.
The Electoral Count Act prevents a state from changing its laws around selecting electors at the last minute, so who is in the majority in the legislature or elections boards doesnt matter. AFAIK, all swing states award their electors to the winner of the states popular vote, and any slate of electors that doesnt reflect that would be fraudulent.
kentuck
(113,200 posts)To not certify electoral votes if they are for the Democrat?
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)In any case, the CREW report details all the steps the swing states have previously taken against certification refusers (all of which succeeded), and the tools in place for this year.
I expect a certain amount of chaos and confusion, but I expect the state executive branch will prevail.
Sogo
(5,980 posts)
kentuck
(113,200 posts)Sorry for the confusion.
Stinky The Clown
(68,503 posts)Don't hold your breath. You'll turn blue first.