@Marie

We do NOT use "absentee" ballots to vote by mail. Not that I understand why you keep harping on this semantic point. But in any case you are incorrect.

In 1997, state lawmakers made a simple change in Arizona election law. The word “absentee” was replaced by “early.”

In 2007, Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez led an effort by county recorders to get the Legislature to create the Permanent Early Voting List.

“Our constituents were saying: 'How come I have to do this every year, request a ballot by mail? You can see in my history I always vote this way.' And they were correct, so we went to the Legislature saying: 'Look, people want this method. Let them have the option of choosing to do it or not to do it,'” Rodriguez said.

Since Arizona changed its early voting laws, making it easier to cast an early ballot, the practice has become more popular. Most of the early ballots cast are done so by mail.

Vote by mail and absentee voting by state as of November 2020

The "vote by mail" (all registered voters receive a ballot) states are: CO, DC (perhaps), HI, MT (county option), OR, UT, and WA.

For the 2020 election four states did vote by mail: CA, NV, NJ, and VT due to COVID-19. What they'll do in the future is yet to be determined.

Then there are the "no excuse" absentee ballot states. Such as AZ.

Then there are the states that still require an acceptable excuse to obtain an absentee ballot. Several states expanded the excuse to include COVID-19. Note how limited that expansion was in MS and MO.

Finally in 2020 there were some states that mailed out applications for absentee ballots. These were CT, DE, IL, IA, MD, MA, MI, NB, NM, OH, RI, and WI.

FYI - COVID-19 was not an acceptable excuse for an absentee ballot in TX.

@Marie

The "vote by mail" (all registered voters receive a ballot) states are: CO, DC (perhaps), HI, MT (county option), OR, UT, and WA.

For the 2020 election four states did vote by mail: CA, NV, NJ, and VT due to COVID-19. What they'll do in the future is yet to be determined.

Then there are the "no excuse" absentee ballot states. Such as AZ.

Then there are the states that still require an acceptable excuse to obtain an absentee ballot. Several states expanded the excuse to include COVID-19. Note how limited that expansion was in MS and MO.

Finally in 2020 there were some states that mailed out applications for absentee ballots. These were CT, DE, IL, IA, MD, MA, MI, NB, NM, OH, RI, and WI.

A couple points:

In Nevada, ballots were mailed to anyone with a driver's license (many NV voters apparently live in casinos, vacant lots, marijuana dispensaries...) so many that were ineligible to vote received ballots (IIUC) there was some small disclaimer in English that said something about non-citizens not being able to vote written - which means that more than 20,000 people in Nevada who are non-citizens received ballots

Wisconsin requires an excuse for absentee voting and has signature and witness requirements for those using absentee ballots - with an exception for those who are permanently or indefinitely confined. Officials in some counties there made announcements to the effect that those confined due to COVID-19 could use the permanently/indefinitely confined option and thus be exempt from normal signature requirements and numbers of voters claiming that status went from 72,000 in 2019 to 180,000 by the 2020 primary to about 240,000 by the November election.

Courts eventually held that the advice was improper, but rejected requests to not count those ballots even though the status was improperly claimed in many cases and evaded state law intent in terms of election security.

Again, concerns about this were raised before the election

...

Vote by mail and absentee voting by state as of November 2020

The "vote by mail" (all registered voters receive a ballot) states are: CO, DC (perhaps), HI, MT (county option), OR, UT, and WA.

For the 2020 election four states did vote by mail: CA, NV, NJ, and VT due to COVID-19. What they'll do in the future is yet to be determined.

Then there are the "no excuse" absentee ballot states. Such as AZ.

Then there are the states that still require an acceptable excuse to obtain an absentee ballot. Several states expanded the excuse to include COVID-19. Note how limited that expansion was in MS and MO.

Finally in 2020 there were some states that mailed out applications for absentee ballots. These were CT, DE, IL, IA, MD, MA, MI, NB, NM, OH, RI, and WI.

FYI - COVID-19 was not an acceptable excuse for an absentee ballot in TX.

@Marie

before 2016, California instituted Permanent Absentee Voter status. Anybody can enroll at any time. Those who are enrolled receive all the normal election information brochures and such and a "mail-in" ballot with special envelope. The ballot must be placed in the envelope, which must be signed, and may then be mailed, dropped off at specified functionaries office, or deposited in the box provided in one's local polling place. I think, but am not certain, that one can drop it off at any polling place. In 2020, special drop boxes were also provided outside of libraries and in similar locations.

be well and have a good one.

Vote by mail and absentee voting by state as of November 2020

The "vote by mail" (all registered voters receive a ballot) states are: CO, DC (perhaps), HI, MT (county option), OR, UT, and WA.

For the 2020 election four states did vote by mail: CA, NV, NJ, and VT due to COVID-19. What they'll do in the future is yet to be determined.

Then there are the "no excuse" absentee ballot states. Such as AZ.

Then there are the states that still require an acceptable excuse to obtain an absentee ballot. Several states expanded the excuse to include COVID-19. Note how limited that expansion was in MS and MO.

Finally in 2020 there were some states that mailed out applications for absentee ballots. These were CT, DE, IL, IA, MD, MA, MI, NB, NM, OH, RI, and WI.

FYI - COVID-19 was not an acceptable excuse for an absentee ballot in TX.

@vtcc73
Until I see video of Trump caling on them to attack congress, I stand by my statement that he is not legally responsible. Morally, is something different? Do you want laws enforcing morality? Congress to decree what is allowed to be said? First and foremost, the First amendment protects political speech.

Again, the only footage I have seen is of Trump telling them to protest peacefully. I'm quite sure the morons thought they were patriots stopping a Congress that had been taken over by Socialists. Socialists like Pelosi, Schumer and Biden. I'd laugh if that thought didn't want to make me vomit.

Yes, there will be more riots because of the Democrats using this as an excuse to stop trump from running again. he probably would have won in 2014 after Biden and Harris, Schumer, Durbin and Pelosi and Schiff have destroyed the working class totally. Now there will be some tame poodle of the banks so that the banks can rule for a while with their right hand instead of their Left hand. The only losers are the working stiffs.

I am not defending the Moron in Chief. I'm defending the rule of law.

I really have nothing to add to what you've written. Well reasoned and argued.

What follows is based on my growing unease with the positions, arguments, and tortured reasoning and logic I've seen here the past few months. I'll get to that later. Let's address sedition and insurrection first. John Adams got in a shitload of trouble over his sedition law. It was one reason he was a one term president. In my opinion barring sedition has no place in a free society. Depending on how it is defined and laws against it are worded, resistance to and protest against unjust laws, government actions, and elected officials can be called sedition and punished criminally. We know how poorly the prohibition against sedition went in the first few years of the 19th century. The law was repealed because it was used politically against rivals. No surprise there.

What trump did on January 6th is sedition by most definitions but it's not a prohibited action although it could probably be grounds for claims of violating an oath of office. It's kind of bizarre that a president could be considered seditious. Against who, himself and his administration? His problem is that he arguably incited an insurrection. (Partly against himself, partly for himself...can't make this shit up.) Getting caught up in an insurrection or inciting one is a big problem addressed in the Constitution as well as federal law. The courts may or may not get a chance to rule on trump's part but will almost surely address the actions of his minions (far more stupid and inept than the animated Minions from the movies). Those elected representatives who participated directly to enable what transpired at the least violated their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. Whether what they did rises to the level of enabling and supporting an insurrection is for the Justice Department to decide and the courts to rule on. Were I Ted Cruz, besides thinking of having myself committed, would be rather concerned about how I was going to slip out of a nasty self induced flustercluck.

That's my opinion on sedition and insurrection and may or may not be supported by the law. I'm no lawyer. As a citizen, though, I saw elected representatives create an environment that enabled and incited a mob to assault the Capitol and civil servants charged with its protection. People died as a result. There is little doubt about the existence of conspiracies to do all sorts of mischief. The prison/industrial complex is going to be overjoyed.

Are there really some of us who think behavior like that is what we want from elected leaders? Do any of us think that they, along with trump and his close henchmen, should not be held accountable? Do any of us think that because they had not been held accountable for the corruption of the previous 1487 days, they should get a pass on this one too? If there are please explain yourself and show your work.

The lack of accountability in government and our elected, appointed, and hired public servants is one of the problems that most needs fixed if we're to get this country on track to sanity and a functioning democracy. I don't know about you but I'm past sick of people accepting anything from their team while screaming "what about them?".

Money in politics is another huge problem. Corporate and dark money leads the pack as corrupting influences and endless ratfuckery. So now when corporations are stopping political donations (At least temporarily - I mean come on - permanently? That's crazy!), we're objecting? What? Wrong reason for doing the right thing? No such thing IMHO. The same goes for refusing to give these turds a free public platform on social media or sell/rent a platform. Que the tortured censorship arguments. Do we hate corporations, capitalism, and/or our system so much that we've lost our ability to take the gift of not having trump and many others spew toxic waste 24/7/365? Or is it that we somehow sympathize/support with the insurrection? There's a strange thought that just popped into my mind. Could be?

The Republicans and neoliberals everywhere should be all for defunding these assholes. Their market solutions are finally actually happening. Somehow I don't think it'll go that way. Just think a moment. Some of us seem to agree with neoliberals and fascists. There's another strange perspective.

This comment should give us something to talk about. I have to go make dinner. have fun.

@Blue Republic

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 was passed, and embedded in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the US Code, to deal with precisely this situation. Nobody wanted another long-drawn-out and potentially partisan investigation. The idea was to require immediate up-or-down decisions on the validity, or lack thereof, of the votes.

There have been no successful challenges under these rules.

Now if they want to get together an investigative commission after the fact, that's their business. But it will change nothing.

and even fewer, apparently, in the world at large have even bothered to acquaint themselves with what Cruz, Lankford and other objecting senators were proposing to *do* or their stated reasons for doing so - here is their statement in full, issued prior to Jan. 6.

As far as I'm concerned they were acting in good faith - doing the job of representing their constituents and upholding the Constitution. If Goldman Sachs won't contribute to them I certainly will.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) issued the following statement in advance of the Electoral College certification process on January 6, 2021:

"America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law.

"When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.

"The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.

"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.

"At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.

"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

"We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.

"We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20-would dramatically improve Americans' faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.

"These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy."

@Blue Republic
I recall that in High school, in Illinois being taught that Tilden probably should have been President.

Calling for those senators to be removed from office for that is -- I can't think of a word bad enough --.
Vote them down, okay, but removal from office?

Why are c99'ers deifying Biden?

and even fewer, apparently, in the world at large have even bothered to acquaint themselves with what Cruz, Lankford and other objecting senators were proposing to *do* or their stated reasons for doing so - here is their statement in full, issued prior to Jan. 6.

As far as I'm concerned they were acting in good faith - doing the job of representing their constituents and upholding the Constitution. If Goldman Sachs won't contribute to them I certainly will.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) issued the following statement in advance of the Electoral College certification process on January 6, 2021:

"America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law.

"When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.

"The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.

"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.

"At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.

"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

"We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.

"We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20-would dramatically improve Americans' faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.

"These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy."

@Blue Republic Ted Cruz is citing numbers that don't even represent a majority. "Allegations", and yet all the courts that have looked at their "evidence" have all said, there is no evidence.

Ted Cruz, is my senator and he a lying POS. You're backing a guy that shut down the government just because he wanted to, not because it was required or necessary!

He's been fund raising off the Georgia races, basically committing fraud. But the fine print let's him get away with it, while creating a false narrative for his personal / political benefit. Without the fine print, it's straight up FRAUD!

If one has to use fine print to get away with a crime, the intent is criminal!

They guy is the Grand Poobah of the Texas Taliban Tea Party. Heck why didn't he sue the state of Texas that changed the elections laws by executive order by Gov. Abbott that extended early voting?

Why is he only challenging the states where the election went to Biden and not the states that change their election laws, BECAUSE of the healthcare emergency, that went for Trump?

Hypocrisy 101. That is Ted Cruz!

Gee, why the change all of a sudden... from the Texas Tribune:

Democratic voters in Texas were more likely to cast their ballots by mail than Republican voters in the last election.

Today, that may sound like a forgone conclusion, but that wasn’t the case four years ago. Absentee ballots, which only certain groups of Texans are eligible to use, have traditionally been a tool utilized by the GOP, and in 2016, counties reported that higher percentages of Republican voters cast absentee ballots than Democratic voters.

The reason for the swap? It came from the top. Experts and political operatives note that President Donald Trump spent months attacking the credibility of mail-in voting to his Republican base while national and state Democrats launched their largest-ever push to support the method as a safe option to vote in the pandemic.

Snip

“In previous elections, you had the state (Republican) party, you had whoever was at the top of the ticket, sending out ballot-by-mail applications to their [eligible] voters to get them to vote by mail,” Ryan said. “There’s always been a concerted effort on the part of Republicans to get as many people to vote by mail as they could.”

In 2020, however, those efforts were thwarted by both their own party’s leaders in Texas and Washington. In a rolling series of tweets and at rallies, President Donald Trump pushed concerns of widespread fraud — which are unsubstantiated — in mail-in ballots.

The "change" was Donald Trump.

“Trump told Republicans, ‘Don’t touch it,’” said Bob Stein, faculty director at the Rice University Center for Civic Leadership, which is studying voting patterns throughout this election cycle. “There was confusion, fear of the Postal Service, and the president made voting by mail like leprosy or something worse. And I thought at the time that it might suppress Republican turnout. It did not. It just simply made it necessary for a lot of Republican voters to figure out another way of voting.”

That message was echoed by Texas GOP leaders as well. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick characterized efforts to expand mail-in voting during the pandemic as a “scam by Democrats” that would lead to “the end of America.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quoted a local prosecutor saying voting by mail “invites fraud.”

That's 180 degree change from 4 years ago, and it's a voting scam by republicans, like Ted Cruz, to sow FEAR.

Oh and gee, Goldman Sachs is the primary Wall Street Company that doesn't think curing cancer is a good business model! No wonder we can't have Healthcare for all, it's not a good business model...

The Mafia business model of Healthcare, pay or die in this country works wonders for Wall Street but not the American people!

Supporting Ted Cruz, who supports this Mafia Business model in American Healthcare, and 100% a hypocrite, well, would not be my choice.

and even fewer, apparently, in the world at large have even bothered to acquaint themselves with what Cruz, Lankford and other objecting senators were proposing to *do* or their stated reasons for doing so - here is their statement in full, issued prior to Jan. 6.

As far as I'm concerned they were acting in good faith - doing the job of representing their constituents and upholding the Constitution. If Goldman Sachs won't contribute to them I certainly will.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) issued the following statement in advance of the Electoral College certification process on January 6, 2021:

"America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law.

"When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.

"The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.

"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.

"At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.

"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

"We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.

"We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20-would dramatically improve Americans' faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.

"These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy."