Polls /

Fani Willis gets it wrong – 2 sets of electors are legal and have precedent

  |   By Polling+ Staff

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis holds a press conference in the Fulton County Government Center after a grand jury voted to indict former US President Donald Trump and 18 others on August 14, 2023, in Atlanta, Georgia. The Georgia prosecutor who brought sweeping charges against former president Donald Trump and 18 other defendants said Monday, August 14, that she wants to hold their trial "within the next six months." Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said arrest warrants had been issued for Trump and the others charged over their efforts to overturn the 2020 election and they had until August 25 to "voluntarily surrender." (Photo by Christian MONTERROSA / AFP) (Photo by CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA/AFP via Getty Images)

So Fani Willis got it wrong. Or, quite deliberately, she knows history and precedent and is deliberately ignoring to “get Trump.”

Shocking. Not.

Over there in The American Spectator, Fox News contributor Deroy Murdock does the detail work to show that, in fact, there is no such thing as “fake electors.” https://spectator.org/this-just-in-competing-slates-of-electors-have-happened-before/

Murdock writes:

“Donald Trump’s fake-electors scheme” as if it were a cutting-edge conspiracy concocted at his Mar-a-Lago compound in the wee small hours of the morning. In fact, “fake electors” are neither new nor nefarious. And they are not fake, either.

Believe it or not, a Congressional Research Service paper discusses how to proceed when a state sends to Washington two separate slates of presidential electors — as has happened in the past!

CRS spelled this out on December 8, 2020 in a 13-page document titled “Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress.” Indeed, beneath the bold-faced heading below, this report includes an entire section about how to handle what Willis and other Democrat liars deceitfully call “fake electors”: 

Receipt of Two Certificates From the Same State 

As the CRS study declares:

“Influenced by its historical experience prior to 1887, Congress was particularly concerned in the statute of 1887 with the case of two lists of electors and votes being presented to Congress from the same state.”

The relevant law is the Electoral Count Act of 1887, particularly 3 U.S. Code § 15.

The other governing authority is the Supreme Law of the Land: Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and the 12th Amendment thereto.”

Among other inconvenient details for Willis, the Fulton County Georgia District Attorney who has targeted Trump and others on this issue, Murdock cites the identical situation in Hawaii in 1960 – and used by, yes indeed, Democratic presidential nominee Senator John F. Kennedy.  Murdock writes:

“In 1961, during a recount dispute after the 1960 election, Hawaii sent to Washington two slates of electors. One supported Democrat John F. Kennedy and another Republican Richard Milhous Nixon. GOP Governor William Quinn approved Nixon’s slate, based on the Aloha State’s popular vote on that December 19. With Hawaii’s results in flux, the next step was no surprise.

As CRS notes: “Both slates of electors had met on the prescribed day in December, cast their votes for President and Vice President, and transmitted them according to the federal statute.”

Congress met in joint session on January 6, 1961 and weighed the results of a recount that emerged on December 28: Kennedy won 92,410 votes (50.03%) versus Nixon’s 92,295 (49.97%) — a final margin of 115 ballots! Equipped with these new data, Congress counted Kennedy’s slate of three electors on January 6, 1961.

… Based on these precedents, Trump and his 18 co-defendants did nothing wrong and everything


…Trump attempted in Georgia exactly what Kennedy accomplished in Hawaii in 1960 and early 1961: Pursue recounts and other challenges in a tight race in a particular state, send an alternate slate of electors to Washington, and then let a joint session of Congress declare a winner.”

The concerning fact here is that either Willis has no idea about the 1960 election – and should. Or, she knows exactly but in her zeal to “get Trump” she has weaponized the law and all too willingly is ignoring precedent and the law.

Not good.

Not good at all.