Is November 17th the "Safe Harbor" date?

[Samantha]

I have some pressing business this evening, but I also have a burning question. So while I can't really host a thread, if you have the answer to this question, please let me know.

This morning I was rushing around getting ready for work and heard what I thought was a comment on CSPAN. I know a lot of work is being done to audit the vote in Florida and Ohio, not to mention New Hampshire, but the other night, I posted a thread regarding overturning an election. That thread clearly was put in view to point out the difference between challenging an election BEFORE the appearance of finality versus AFTER. The comment I thought I heard was that November 17 is the Safe Harbor date.

Having followed Bush v. Gore, I know the "Safe Harbor" date is that date states must have their electoral slate submitted in order for there to be a guarantee those electoral votes will be counted. Further research of this law revealed it was written during the Pony Express era, when states did in fact deliver their Electoral College votes via this transport. States which delayed dispatching their messenger sometimes in fact did deliver their votes late. The Congress got so tired of this delay, thus the Safe Harbor date. Many states since that law was passed have in fact filed after it, i.e., I believe in 2000 Hawaii was late, and their slates have been counted.

But the fact remains, that is the first deadline anyone attempting to challenge the election must recognize. My question to you is this: have you heard the "Safe Harbor" deadline?

Thanks in advance for anyone responding. I'll check back later.

[sundancekid]

1. our state (NM) does 3 vote audits and reports on the 23rd of Nov. so I

can't imagine that this state would have no constitutional chance to participate in the Safe Harbor time frames -- vague memory from 2000 makes me think it's around Dec 12th, but no actual fact that I know

[papau]

2. the rules are below

The federal Electoral Count Act of 1887, adopted in the aftermath of the disputed Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, has never been tested, and its provisions are both obscure and obsolete. The act encourages each state to provide for "final determination" of a controversy that has produced two competing slates of presidential electors. If a "final determination" favoring one slate is reached no later than six days before the date set by law for the meeting of the Electoral College -- the so-called "safe harbor" provision -- the determination is binding when Congress counts the electoral vote, unless the House and Senate agree to reject the favored slate.

If there is no acceptable state law determination within the "safe harbor" period, the House and Senate can agree either to accept one, or reject both, of the state's competing slates. If the House and Senate disagree, then the slate certified by the state's governor is counted. If the state has produced only one slate of electors, it is counted unless the houses concur in rejecting it. Although a state contest determination reached after the "safe harbor" period closes is not binding, Congress is free to consider it in reaching its decision.

In 1934, as a consequence of the adoption of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution (the so-called "Lame Duck Amendment" which moved the date of inaugurating a newly elected President and Vice-President from 4 March after a presidential election up to 20 January and the date of a newly-elected Congress from 4 March up to 3 January) the year before, the dates of the Electors' meeting in their respective States to cast their votes for President and Vice-President and that of the Joint Session of Congress to tabulate the Electoral Vote was changed once again. The Presidential Electors would now cast their votes in their respective States on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December- this provision is still in force

[Samantha]

3. Thanks, Papau!

During the election 2000 controversy, I heard that a couple of times over our history states have been disqualified from participating in the Electoral College vote. I heard this on the news, didn't read it anywhere, and have no link. It was not stated the states were disqualified as a result of the Safe Harbor law. I believe it was for "cheating." Do you have any knowledge of any historical presidential-election situations like this?

[papau]

4. no - the faithless elector went to a vote - and the faithless vote allowed

late voting was the problem in the 1800's - held up the college voting.

And votes arriving after the electoral college met were accepted by Congress as part of the Electoral vote totals.

I do not know what "disqualified from participating in the Electoral College vote" means - unless it means the official vote did not arrive until after the magic date - and even then I know of no vote not counted in final official totals accepted by the Congress -

But a history PHD - not an old actuary - would be a better source for this information!

:-)

[Carolab]

5. Interesting story here

1960 in Hawaii - the first time that Hawai`i was eligible to vote in the Presidential election - the Republicans, who had been in tight control since 1893, did a bit of "slight of hand". That is they did not count ALL of the votes and declared Mr. Nixon had won the popular vote in Hawai`i by 151 votes.

Finding more than a hundred ballots in several precincts that had not been counted correctly, was cause for a court challenge.
A recount was demanded. Sister Correra (Dem) and Carla Coray (Rep) were among the people chosen to hand count the impounded ballots.

On the first Monday after the second Wednesday, being the nineteenth day in December the Electoral College met at the 'Iolani Palace and of course, the Republicans Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worral and O.P. Soares, cast their three ballots for Richard Milhouse Nixon as President of the United States and Henry Cabot Lodge for Vice-President.

As that very same time the Electors for the Democrats, William H. Heen, Delbert E. Metzer and Jennie Wilson, drafted and signed a petition to cast their 3 ballots for John F. Kennedy as President and Lyndon B. Johnson as Vice-President.

Republican James K. Kealoha, Acting Governor of Hawai`i, certified the ballots cast by the Republican electors and not the petition signed by the Democrats.

December 30, 1960. "The court room was filled with supporters, friends and newspeople" Mrs. Correa said "Martin Pentz was the Federal Judge". Herman T.F. Lum, Kennedy campaign manager and chief clerk of the State House of Representatives for many years, had filed suite against Gavien A. Bush et al (The Republican electors) to have the election overturned as a result of the recount of votes cast on November 8, 1960.


On January 6, 1961, when all of the electoral ballots were opened before a joint session of Congress, John F. Kennedy was declared President of the United States with the addition of Hawaii's three electoral votes.

Therefore, we say it was the Republicans who attempted to steal the 1960 election.

(As relayed by a person elected to the Electoral College four times.)

[papau]

6. thanks - I like history - and this confirms my opinion of the GOP and of

the 1960 election (my Mom was Lake County election Judge (GOP) in Illinois - SAW THE CORRUPTION- and refused to serve again)