Kamala Harris and Donald Trump continue to be locked in a neck-and-neck race in key states which will decide the fate of the November 5 elections in the United States. According to the latest poll from The Hill and Emerson College Polling, the two candidates are tied, at 49%, in Michigan and Wisconsin, while Trump is ahead by just one point in Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania – 49% to 48 % – and by 2 in Arizona, 49% versus 47%. Harris, however, leads by two points in Nevada, 48% to 47%.
With a challenge on the line, it cannot be ruled out that the Supreme Court will have to cast the final vote for the White House. Even if it is impossible to foresee at the moment a new ‘Bush vs Gore’ situation – when in 2000 it was the Supreme Court, after weeks of legal battles, which sanctioned George Bush’s victory in Florida, handing the presidency to the Republican – Politico presents three possible scenarios of an involvement of the Court.
The three scenarios
The first scenario involves the supreme justices being called upon to express their opinion on a ruling on a state electoral law. In North Carolina, one of the seven key states that will most likely decide the fate of the presidential elections with a minimum margin of votes, several appeals have been filed against the voting registration and mail-in voting procedures.
The most significant appeal, with which the Republicans are trying to exclude 225 thousand voters from the registers, has just been heard by a first-level federal court. And in recent days the Court has not accepted another case, coming from another swing state, Pennsylvania, again concerning recordings.
The second scenario includes the possibility of the Court being seized of a case after the elections have taken place. This could happen, Politico further speculates, in the event that a state does not notify Congress within the time established by law of the certification of the ‘electors’ who will then have to meet in the electoral college to formally vote for the president. A new law approved by Congress after the events of January 6th makes it mandatory to respect the date for communication to Congress.
In case of non-compliance, the same law provides a ‘fast track’ mechanism to bring disputes relating to certifications directly to the Supreme Court. For example, a situation could arise in which the Georgia elections commission, controlled by Trumpian officials, refuses to certify a possible victory for Harris, justifying the position with accusations of fraud. At this point the way would open for a legal appeal, based on the Electoral Count Act of the late 19th century and the new 2022 measure.
Finally, the third scenario could lead to an intervention by the Court at the end of the trial, i.e. after the joint sessionof January 6, 2025, of the Congress for the final certification of the winner. It is the most unlikely scenario, also because, Politico notes, it would be the most explosive.
Under federal law, one-fifth of senators and one-fifth of representatives can object to the certification of a particular state’s electoral votes, saying the votes were “not properly cast.”
Votes given to someone who, based on federal and state law, is not qualified to be president could fall into this category, Politico writes, recalling that Democrats have tried – in an attempt also rejected by the Supreme Court – to disqualify Trump from the elections for his role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection, for which he was impeached and is now indicted in a federal trial.
In the event of Trump’s victory, and certification of his elections by Congress, Democrats – again in the hypothetical and unlikely scenario outlined by the American site – could turn to the Supreme Court – which it should be remembered has a conservative majority thanks to the three judges appointed by Trump Trump – claiming that colleagues did not do their duty by confirming the election of someone who was not qualified to be elected.
#HarrisTrump #challenge #vote #Supreme #Court #elect #president