New Hampshire Bill to Withhold Presidential Election Results Until After the Electoral College Meets

Seven New Hampshire Republican representatives have introduced HB 1531. It makes it illegal for any election official, or any contractor with any election administration office, to release the New Hampshire popular vote totals for president, until after the electoral college has met. Instead the state would only release the percentage of the vote received by each presidential candidate, down to one-tenth of 1%.

The purpose of this bill is to make it impossible for the National Popular Vote compact to operate, should it ever take effect. The bill only takes effect if the National Popular Vote compact is in effect.

The authors of this bill may not realize that a federal law requires states to report the presidential popular vote to the Archivist of the United States as soon as the state knows the results. Title 3, chapter 1 of the U.S. Code (3 USC 6) says, “It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment…to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast.”

The sponsors are Representatives Andrew Prout, Jess Edwards, Michael Costable, Kevin Verville, Alice Lekas, Tony Lekas, and Peter Torosian.


Comments

New Hampshire Bill to Withhold Presidential Election Results Until After the Electoral College Meets — 18 Comments

  1. I’m not sure this is the best way to go about it, but this is a good demonstration of the NPVIC’s fatal flaw. Any one state, including states who haven’t joined NPVIC, can wreck it and make it impossible to determine the NPV winner as defined by NPVIC. See for example Alabama 1960 and the dispute over who really won the NPV that year, depending on how you count it.

    A simple fix would have been to include language in the NPVIC ignoring any state that refused to produce a popular vote count, but it’s too late to fix that now without going back and passing an amendment in all the states that have already passed it.

  2. How much of such US Code, Title 3, Chap 1 is constitutional ???

    Fed part of the rotted EC system takes over AFTER the STATE/DC 12 Amdt folks have voted.
    —-
    ALL more reason to ABOLISH ALL of the EC timebomb ROT.

    Uniform definition of elector-voter
    PR
    AppV
    TOTSOP

  3. The federal government does not have authority to commandeer state officials, and the U.S. does not have any interest in how a state selects it’s electors so it would be difficult for the U.S. to win a court case if a state official refused to provide that information.

  4. Tom, you may be right, but the bill also outlaws persons who contract with election officials from releasing any election returns information, and that probably violates freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment.

    Andy, no state any longer lets voters vote for separate candidates for president elector. The last state that did that was Vermont in 1976. So, the ambiguity mentioned from Alabama in 1960 couldn’t occur now. In Alabama in 1960, the Democratic Party has a fusion ticket consisting of six elector candidates who were unpledged and five elector candidates who were pledged to John Kennedy. The top vote-getting unpledged elector got 324,050 votes, and the top Kennedy elector got 318,303. So that did create an ambiguity, but it can’t happen again because voters can no longer vote for separate elector candidates.

  5. @Richard
    So what you’re saying is if a state went back to electing “electors” it could be another way to throw a wrench into the NPVIC?

  6. The federal constitution requires the electoral votes to be counted by a joint session of Congress. Counting has a deeper meaning than simply 1, 2, 3. In 1876 if Congress had counted all the papers purporting to be electoral votes there would have been more votes than electors.

    New Hampshire could use an intermediate body to choose the electors, similar to that used by Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. They could hold elections in September. These delegates to the Electoral College Selection Commission would meet on TFTATFMIN to appoint the 4 electors.

  7. Brandon, yes. Also it would throw a slight wrench into the federal law that says parties that poll 5% for president are entitled to general election public funding in the next presidential election. The calculation of the 5% would be fuzzy if voters could vote for individual electors in lots of states.

  8. WHAT PART OF THE DEAD 1787 USA CONST GIVES THE USA GERRYMANDER CONGRESS ANY SPENDING POWERS OVER PREZ ELECTIONS IN THE STATES ???

  9. Which gang has the most EVIL ANTI-Democracy HACK so-called lawyers ???

    DNC or RNC [with sub-gangs in each main gang] — dreaming up more and more ANTI-Democracy election schemes.
    —-
    PR
    AppV
    TOTSOP

  10. Ranked choice voting for individual electors would be a better way to evade the National Popular Vote scheme, and actually create a method of election more beneficial to a swing state like New Hampshire.

  11. Allocate each state’s electoral votes by virtual sub districts. In 2016, there were 5 candidates on the ballot. Each voter would get two votes: 1 for at large electors and 1 for district electors. In new hampshire’s case, the statewide winner gets 2 at large electors and the statewide candidates pick up any electoral votes won in the virtual sub districts.

  12. tom –

    Sorry — USA regime has specific power to commandeer state/local officials in elections for USA Reps and Senators via 1-4-3

    and general power to commandeer ALL folks in crisis times- into State Militias [and then put into USA military 1-8-15,16] and/or into USA Marshal posses [involving *regular* USA crimes].

    The olde USA military drafts [wartime and peacetime] were ALL UN-const – subverting the Militia clauses – regardless of SCOTUS MORONS.


    Above due to ALMOST DEFEAT in Am Rev War — esp in CRISIS 1780-1781 — due to States NOT paying War funds/taxes and/or NOT making/sending State military forces to USA Army/Navy and often NOT sending reps to olde Continental/Confederation Congress in 1775-1787.

    Very NEAR thing – USA barely survived only via French regime military and cash aid in 1777-1781.

    Joint USA-France Victory at Yorktown, VA 19 Oct 1781. Brain ROT for Brit tyrants in 1781-1784.

    USA Debt repaid in WW I and II – dead/injured USA forces and USA national debts [some now still from WW I and all of WW II].

  13. For any math MORONS on this list —

    1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY.

    ALL STATES SINCE 1776 AND USA REGIME SINCE 1789.

    Much, much, much worse primary math – esp if no incumbent in a gerrymander area.

    PR AND APPV AND TOTSOP.

  14. This is just one of numerous ways that NON-NPVIC States can and will destabilize the NPVIC whenever it takes effect.

    It just demonstrates how fragile this extremely radical and diabolical NPV scheme is to convert the American Federation into the democracy that it has never been.

    The U.S. population has NEVER, ever elected the President, because it has never been assigned that responsibility to do so.

    It is not even the BACK-UP Plan in the event a majority of the States cannot elect the President (which has only happened ONCE -1824- in 58 elections)!

    Not every State even held a popular vote to determine who it’s Electors would be, until the 1876 election!

    Because popular votes tend to be unstable and democracies quickly implode, the Founders considereed, debated and DEFEATED the principle of having a popular vote elect the President on a 10-2 vote!

    The Electoral College, by contrast, has proven itself to be rock-solid and very stable for over 220 years already.

    Since the 1908 election of Teddy Roosevelt, the Electoral College has elected Democrats 14 times and it has elected Republicans 14 times. There is nothing inherently unfair nor “broken” about it!

    The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact scheme needs to be permanently shut down and defeated everywhere it is proposed.

  15. Every state elects its governor with a popular vote, and that seems to work OK. Every member of Congress is elected by popular vote and that seems to work OK.

    Every state used a popular vote to elect its presidential electors in 1864, 1868, and 1872. But in 1876, the Colorado legislature elected Colorado’s electors.

  16. @RW,

    Every state presents the same gubernatorial ballot to its voters, who all have the same eligibility requirements, and there is a unified system for determining final results, including recounts.

    Susan mvymvy assures us equal protection does not operate across state lines.

    In 1876, if all states followed Colorado’s example there would not have been the national controversy. It was precisely because the other 37 states used popular vote that the controversy occurred. Popular election was the proximate cause.

  17. JC wrote – The Electoral College, by contrast, has proven itself to be rock-solid and very stable for over 220 years already.

    —-
    Yeah. Sure.

    750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866
    Almost Civil WAR II in 1832 [see 1833 Force Act – approx. peak of slave States power], 1876-1877, 1960, 1968, 2000, 2016 [??? 2020]

    END the DARK AGE N-O-W.

    Uniform definition of Elector-Voter
    PR
    AppV – NONPARTISAN exec/judic
    TOTSOP

    REDUCE the killer power of USA Prezs —
    see KILLER Trump in Syria, Iraq, etc.

    How many RED Donkeys in the gerrymander Congress will be KILLED if Trump is NOT convicted in the impeachment circus in the USA minority rule Senate ???

  18. CO admitted Aug 1, 1876 — to rig the 1876 election for Elephants.

    More SMALL pop Elephant States added later – to rig more elections — to 1930-1932 – Great Depression I.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.