U.S. News & World Report has this story about the California presidential elector problem for Donald Trump in California.
Comments
U.S. News & World Report Carries Story on California Presidential Elector Problem for Donald Trump — 11 Comments
There is no provision in California statute providing the manner by which its presidential electors are appointed.
Congress should not count any electoral votes from California, and eliminate its congressional representation under terms of the 14th Amendment.
Jim Riley
What about CA Election Code 7300 for the GOP?
Brulte had deadline of by October 1, 2016, effective
Date 9/30/2016 and missed it time of 5 o’clock. He
completed and filed on October 3rd after the AIP
Filed 7 hours before with 55 list of Presidential electors
and used only 2 of the 55 of the AIP filed list on his.
That created 108 for only 55. 7 on 7300 section was not
even on the list Brulte with no proof they did no want to be an electors.
Show me something in California statute where the persons described in EC 7300 would become electors for California.
The closest I could find are the voter instructions in EC 13205(b).
Were those instructions included on the ballots in Solano County?
And there’s also another “problem” that’s equally likely to happen: If Trump’s electors in California turn into jackrabbits between Election Day and December, they will be unable to cast their votes for him in the Electoral College because jackrabbits are unable to speak or write.
We are informed the Office of Presidential Elector is a elected office. 55 are to be elected on 8 November 2016. However there are 108 on the list now that showed be backing Trunp/Pence. We have now know information why the 7 additional candidates for the GOP
under Section 7300 are not accounted for in the late filing of Jim Brulte!?
Who is the “we” that were informed. Who informed them. How were they informed?
Were the instructions in EC 13205(b) included on the ballots in Solano County?
Jim, Markham Robinson here,
I know that NONE of the CA Counties obey EC13205(b) which would clear up the nature of CA voters action in voting for slates of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States (Electoral College members) nominated by political parties and pledged to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate tickets.
Jim Riley, you wrote “There is no provision in California statute providing the manner by which its presidential electors are appointed.” Wrong, there is a lot about that. What CC/ROV #16270 of August 26, 2016, asserts and I quote is the following:
“The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.”
It was appropriate then and even more so now to address this fatal flaw in the ballot, now that the Republican Party has submitted its list of Electoral College nominees, to the Secretary of State, a submission BTW which is flawed in three substantial ways, a notice of which will be conveyed to the SOS October 11, 2016, by the AIP. Stay tuned.
Jim Riley, Mark Seidenberg wrote “We are informed the Office of Presidential Elector is a elected office.” You asked how “we” the AIP were informed. We found a CA Code section that says this. I’ll find which one and get back to you.
For all other elected offices the candidate names appear on the ballot. But I’m looking for something equivalent to the Texas Election Code that states:
“Sec. 192.005. VOTE REQUIRED FOR ELECTION. The set of elector candidates that is elected is the one that corresponds to the candidates for president and vice-president receiving the most votes.
The provisions in the California Election Code are contradictory. A voter is instructed to vote for one party, and is also instructed that a vote for a party translates into a vote for the electors of the party. But if two parties jointly nominate a presidential candidate they appear on the same line. How does a voter vote for one candidate?
I note that Article XIV, Section 2 states in part: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, …
But when the right to vote at any election for a choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United
States …, is denied to any male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and Citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, …, the basis of representation therein, shall be reduced in proportion which the number of such male citizens twenty-one years in such State.”
There is no provision in California statute providing the manner by which its presidential electors are appointed.
Congress should not count any electoral votes from California, and eliminate its congressional representation under terms of the 14th Amendment.
Jim Riley
What about CA Election Code 7300 for the GOP?
Brulte had deadline of by October 1, 2016, effective
Date 9/30/2016 and missed it time of 5 o’clock. He
completed and filed on October 3rd after the AIP
Filed 7 hours before with 55 list of Presidential electors
and used only 2 of the 55 of the AIP filed list on his.
That created 108 for only 55. 7 on 7300 section was not
even on the list Brulte with no proof they did no want to be an electors.
Show me something in California statute where the persons described in EC 7300 would become electors for California.
The closest I could find are the voter instructions in EC 13205(b).
Were those instructions included on the ballots in Solano County?
And there’s also another “problem” that’s equally likely to happen: If Trump’s electors in California turn into jackrabbits between Election Day and December, they will be unable to cast their votes for him in the Electoral College because jackrabbits are unable to speak or write.
We are informed the Office of Presidential Elector is a elected office. 55 are to be elected on 8 November 2016. However there are 108 on the list now that showed be backing Trunp/Pence. We have now know information why the 7 additional candidates for the GOP
under Section 7300 are not accounted for in the late filing of Jim Brulte!?
Who is the “we” that were informed. Who informed them. How were they informed?
Were the instructions in EC 13205(b) included on the ballots in Solano County?
Jim, Markham Robinson here,
I know that NONE of the CA Counties obey EC13205(b) which would clear up the nature of CA voters action in voting for slates of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States (Electoral College members) nominated by political parties and pledged to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate tickets.
Jim Riley, you wrote “There is no provision in California statute providing the manner by which its presidential electors are appointed.” Wrong, there is a lot about that. What CC/ROV #16270 of August 26, 2016, asserts and I quote is the following:
“The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.”
It was appropriate then and even more so now to address this fatal flaw in the ballot, now that the Republican Party has submitted its list of Electoral College nominees, to the Secretary of State, a submission BTW which is flawed in three substantial ways, a notice of which will be conveyed to the SOS October 11, 2016, by the AIP. Stay tuned.
Jim Riley, Mark Seidenberg wrote “We are informed the Office of Presidential Elector is a elected office.” You asked how “we” the AIP were informed. We found a CA Code section that says this. I’ll find which one and get back to you.
For all other elected offices the candidate names appear on the ballot. But I’m looking for something equivalent to the Texas Election Code that states:
“Sec. 192.005. VOTE REQUIRED FOR ELECTION. The set of elector candidates that is elected is the one that corresponds to the candidates for president and vice-president receiving the most votes.
The provisions in the California Election Code are contradictory. A voter is instructed to vote for one party, and is also instructed that a vote for a party translates into a vote for the electors of the party. But if two parties jointly nominate a presidential candidate they appear on the same line. How does a voter vote for one candidate?
I note that Article XIV, Section 2 states in part: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, …
But when the right to vote at any election for a choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United
States …, is denied to any male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and Citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, …, the basis of representation therein, shall be reduced in proportion which the number of such male citizens twenty-one years in such State.”