A federal law requires the Governor of each state, and the Mayor of Washington, D.C., to file a certificate of ascertainment with the U.S. Archives, after each presidential election. The law, section 6 of Title 3 of the U.S. Code, requires that this certificate contain the name of each candidate for presidential elector, and how many popular votes he or she received.
Here is page two of the Certificate of Ascertainment filed by the Mayor of Washington, D.C., after the 2008 presidential election. In violation of the law, it fails to list three legally-qualified candidates for presidential elector. They were J. Bradley Jansen, Rob Kampia, and Stacie Rumenap. They had filed as official write-in candidates for presidential elector, pledged to vote for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr if they were elected to the electoral college. The District of Columbia Board of Elections accepted their filing. But, the District’s certification fails to list them.
The District failed to list them, because if it had listed them, it would have been obliged to say how many votes they received. Since the Board of Elections never counted their votes, the certificate conveniently pretends that they were not legally-qualified candidates, and fails to mention them. The federal law says the certificate shall contain “the number of votes given or cast for each person” running for presidential elector.
Gee – just like the non-persons in the old EVIL Stalin commie regime.
Abolish the time bomb gerrymander systems before they abolish any sort of freedom in the U.S.A. —
U.S.A. gerrymander H. Reps.
U.S.A. gerrymander Senate
U.S.A. gerrymander Electoral College (including the D.C. EVIL party hack robot morons in the story)
U.S.A. gerrymander 50 State legislatures
U.S.A. gerrymander zillion local regimes.
P.R. and App.V.
The California Constitution provides that parties that hold presidential primaries have the right to participate in the general election for President. In 2008, the Libertarian Party in California nominated Bob Barr, and were fully able to equally contest with the other 5 qualified parties to determine which 55 presidential electors were appointed. If Contra Costa County had refused to place Bob Barr’s name on the ballot, or worse had failed to bother to count his counts, the Libertarian Party and Bob Barr would have been denied their right under the California Constitution to participate in the general election, by both Contra Consta County, and the State of California. It might even be a case where the Libertarian Party, Bob Barr, and the State of California would have to sue Contra Costa County, or perhaps the Secretary of State would have the authority to take direct control of the Contra Costa elections. In a worst case scenario, Governor Brown might have to send in the national guard to secure the courthouse in Martinez. Both Governor Brown and Secretary of State Bowen have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of California and would really have no choice but to act accordingly.
There are those who would have California enter into an interstate compact with other states and the District of Columbia in which popular votes are aggregated to determine which 55 electors are appointed by California. But wouldn’t the District of Columbia’s failure to even bother counting Bob Barr’s votes let alone put him on the ballot, deny the Libertarian Party and Bob Barr their right under the California Constitution to participate in the general election?
Could California sue the District of Columbia? I doubt very much that Jerry Brown could lawfully send the California National Guard into Washington.
In 2008, California did not issue its Certificate of Ascertainment until December 14, the same day that the presidential electors met. While there are provisions for members of the NPV scheme compact to send their election results to each other, non-member States are not bound by those provisions. Susan Mvymvy assures us that the compact members could simply wait until the other 50 certificates of ascertainment are posted on the National Archive website, and then be added in to the national total. But that would mean that NPV compact members would have to wait until after all other certificates of ascertainment were issued and posted on the national archive website before issuing their own certificate of ascertainment. In 2008, West Virginia did not issue their certificate of ascertainment until after the meeting date for the electors. So how can states appoint electors without a certificate of ascertainment?
Could each member of the compact decide whether to exclude all votes from the District of Columbia?
Jim Riley
In 2008 one of the named Presidential Electors picket by
a California Congressman in Los Angeles county was dead
prior to being selected. She died in Humboult County.
The Chairman of the Democratic Party of California past
on a replacement name to the Secretary of State. Therefore, there was no election of a replacement presidential elector at the meeting of the Electorial
College in Sacramento December 2008 as require under the
California Election Code.
In fact it was required for each Congressial nominee to
submit the name of the elector to the Secratary of State. None submitted the name directly to the SOS.
A staff member of the Democratic Party Chairman transmitted the list with all kinds of errors on it.
No one at the Secretary of State’s office checked with
Dean Logan prior to the November election to see if the
elector in question was even registered to vote in
Los Angeles County. When I became aware of the problem
after the November, 20008 election, I noticed both Secretary of State Bowan and Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters about how a dead woman was elected
to the office of Presidential Elector. It got solved
by Bowan by just getting a new named elector from Art
Torres, Chairman of the Demoocratic Party of California.
Major problem this replacement elector was never voted on by the people in the State of California nor by the
remaining members of the California Electorial College.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
2008 Presidential Election Key Dates
* November 4, 2008 – General Election:
The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven original “Certificates of Ascertainment” of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register.
* December 15, 2008 – Meeting of Electors:
The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining original “Certificates of Ascertainment.” The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the Federal and State officials listed in these instructions.
* December 24, 2008 – Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes:
The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand.
* January 6, 2009 – Counting Electoral Votes in Congress:
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date).
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html
Dear Susan Mvymvy-bot.
#4 * November 4, 2008 – General Election:
The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven original “Certificates of Ascertainment” of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register.
In 2008, California’s Certificate Ascertainment was not issued until December 15, 2008. Presumably the election results were not final until that date.
The purpose of the Certificate of Ascertainment is to certify its final determination as to which persons were appointed as presidential electors, and to document the basis of that appointment.
That is why Maine and Nebraska include the popular vote totals for each congressional district on their Certificates of Ascertainment, because those States determine the appointment of 5 of their electors on the basis of the district popular vote.
If a State were to appoint its electors on some other basis, then the Certificate of Ascertainment would document that determination.
If a State were to make its appointment on the basis of the national popular vote count, it would place those vote totals on its Certificate of Ascertainment.
Does the National Popular Vote Scheme provide for any of these:
(a) A single definition of elector;
(b) A uniform set of candidates;
(c) A uniform voting method;
(d) A single national canvass of popular votes;
(e) A method of performing a recount;
#3 You also did not address the issue of whether California may enter into an interstate compact that would violate the California Constitution?
# 5 Gee — perhaps NOOOOO in (a) to (e) ???
How many party hack robots have voted YES for the EVIL NPV scheme from Hell so far ??? — like lemmings going over a cliff into the sea.
# 4 — 12th Amdt part
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
—-
How about *12th Amendment Certificate* ???
— But — Abolish the timebomb Electoral College.
Uniform definition of Elector.
Nonpartisan Approval Voting.
What if a State were pick a Prez name out a hat ???
What would the Certificate then have ??? 6 7/8 ???
I think it’s very interesting the District failed to list the candidates. Seems pretty fishy to me.