DOCSLIB.ORG

Presidential Elections; Electoral College

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAPTER 10 Presidential Elections; Electoral College § 1. In General; Electoral Certificates § 2. Joint Sessions to Count Electoral Votes § 3. Counting Votes; Objections to Count § 4. Presidential Nominations for Vice President INDEX TO PRECEDENTS Certificates ascertaining electors Joint session to count electoral votes generally, see § 3.5 —Cont. transmittal of, to the House, § 1.l recesses in connection with, § § 2.2, 2.3 Certificates of electoral Votes statutory procedures relative to, § 2.6 conflicts relative to, § 3.5 Presidential nominations for Vice objections to vote count, § 3.6 President transmittal of, to the House, §§ 1.1 et confirmation of, § 4.3 seq. referral of, to committee, § 4.2 Joint session to count electoral votes transmission of, by message, § 4.1 concurrent resolution providing for, Tellers to count electoral votes § 2.1 appointment of, in the House, § § 3.1, convening of, § 2.4 3.2 division of, to consider objections, § 3.6 appointment of, in the Senate, § 3.4 presiding officer for, § 2.5 substitution for, in the House, § 3.3 Commentary and editing by John R. Graham, Jr., J.D. and Roy Miller, LL.B. 1557 Presidential Elections; Electoral College § 1. In General; Electoral whether the President should be Certificates chosen by popular vote, by the Congress, or by some other meth- Under the U.S. Constitution, od. Election by direct popular vote both the House and Senate for- was rejected because it was be- mally participate in the process by lieved that the people would have which the President and Vice insufficient knowledge of the var- President are elected. Congress is ious candidates, and because it directed by the 12th amendment was assumed that the people to receive and, in joint session, would be unable to agree on a sin- count the electoral votes certified gle candidate. A plan that would by the states. And if no candidate give Congress the power to select receives a majority of the electoral the President was also rejected, vote, the House of Representatives because of its potential threat to is directed to elect the President, executive independence. Finding while the Senate is directed to itself in disagreement on both elect the Vice President.(1) plans, the convention adopted a This method of selecting a compromise under which each President, later to become known state was given the power to ap- as the ‘‘electoral college,’’ came point electors to be chosen in a about as the result of a com- manner specified by each state promise after lengthy debate at legislature. The electors in each the Constitutional Convention of state, who were to be equal to the 1787. The debate centered on total number of that state’s Rep- resentatives and Senators, would 1. In the Presidential election of 1800, then meet and cast votes for the electors produced a tie vote by President and Vice President. casting an equal number of votes for Historically, the counting of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. electoral votes has been for the Thus the election had to be deter- mined by the House of Representa- most part a mere formality, be- tives, which ultimately voted for Jef- cause the result of the electoral ferson. See 3 Hinds’ Precedents vote has almost invariably been § 1931. For a general discussion of the same as the result of the pop- early electoral-count procedures, see ular vote.(2) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1911–1980 and 6 Cannon’s Precedents §§ 438– 2. There have been rare instances in 446. which the result of the electoral vote 1559 Ch. 10 § 1 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS The electoral vote has generally states have met to cast votes for followed the popular vote because President and Vice President, the electors came to be chosen merely Congress, in accordance with the as representatives of the political provisions of law,(3) convenes in parties and because the state leg- joint session,(4) the Senate and islatures adopted a unit-rule sys- House of Representatives meeting tem under which all of a state’s in the Hall of the House, to exer- electoral votes are to be cast for cise its constitutional responsi- the party which wins a plurality bility for counting the electoral of popular votes statewide. vote. The 12th amendment states in At one o’clock in the afternoon part: on that day, the joint session of The Electors shall meet in their re- the two Houses is called to order spective states, and vote by ballot for by the President of the Senate,(5) President and Vice-President . they shall name in their ballots the person the individual designated by stat- voted for as President, and in distinct ute (6) to serve as the joint ses- ballots the person voted for as Vice sion’s presiding officer. There- President, and they shall make distinct upon, the tellers,(7) who have pre- lists of all persons voted for as Presi- dent, and of all persons voted for as viously been appointed on the ( ) Vice-President, and the number of part of each House, 8 take their votes for each, which lists they shall respective places at the Clerk’s sign and certify, and transmit sealed to desk. According to the alphabet- the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the Presi- ical order of the states, all the dent of the Senate; [t]he President of previously transmitted certificates the Senate shall, in presence of the and papers purporting to be cer- Senate and House of Representatives, tificates of votes given by the elec- open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. tors are then opened by the Presi- dent of the Senate and handed to On the sixth day of January the tellers.(9) Each certificate so after the electors of the several received is read by the tellers in has differed from the result of the 3. 3 USC § 15. popular vote. For example, in the 4. See § 2.4, infra. Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, deter- minations by the House and Senate 5. See § 2.5, infra. with respect to certain disputed elec- 6. 3 USC 15. toral votes resulted in the election of 7. See § § 3.1–3.4, infra, for appoint- Hayes, although Tilden had received ment of tellers. a majority of the popular vote. See 3 8. See § 2.1, infra. Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1953–1956. 9. See § 2.1, infra. 1560 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; ELECTORAL COLLEGE Ch. 10 § 1 the presence and hearing of the been so decided, or immediately two Houses. After the reading of following the reading of such cer- each certificate, the President of tificate or paper when no objec- the Senate calls for objections, if tions thereto are raised, the tell- any. ers make a list of the votes as In the event that a written ob- they appear from the certifi- jection should be raised, properly cates.(12) The result of the count is signed by at least one Senator and then delivered to the President of one Member of the House of Rep- the Senate who thereupon an- resentatives, and when all objec- nounces the state of the vote. This tions so made to any vote or paper announcement is deemed by law a from a state have been received sufficient declaration of the per- and read, the joint session divides, sons, if any, elected President and the Senate repairing to the Senate Vice President of the United Chamber, and all such objections States. The announcement, to- are submitted to and considered gether with a list of the votes, is by each House meeting in sepa- then entered in the Journals of rate session.(10) the two Houses.(13) Pursuant to the provisions of In addition to its responsibil- the U.S. Code, which govern the ities in ascertaining and counting procedures in both Houses in the the electoral votes cast for Presi- event they divide to consider an objection, each Senator and Rep- dent and Vice President, the Con- resentative may speak to such ob- gress has been delegated a further jection for five minutes, and not constitutional duty relative to the more than once; and after such selection of the Vice President. debate has lasted two hours, the Pursuant to section 2 of the 25th presiding officer of each House is amendment to the U.S. Constitu- required to put the main question tion, whenever there is a vacancy without further debate.(11) When in the Office of Vice President the the two Houses have voted, they President nominates a Vice Presi- immediately again meet in joint dent to take office upon confirma- session, and the presiding officer tion by a majority vote of both then announces the decision on Houses.(14) the objections submitted. The House and Senate also Once all objections to any cer- have important responsibilities tificate or paper from a state have 12. See 3 USC § 15. 10. See § 3.6, infra. 13. 3 USC § 15. 11. 3 USC § § 15, 17. 14. See §§ 4.1–4.3, infra. 1561 Ch. 10 § 1 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS under the 20th and 25th amend- On Jan. 6, 1961,(15) the Speak- ments of the U.S. Constitution er (16) laid before the House the with respect to Presidential suc- following communication which cession and disability. The 20th was read and, with accompanying amendment sets forth the proce- papers, referred to the Committee dure to be followed when the on House Administration: President-elect and Vice Presi- GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, dent-elect fail to qualify at the Washington, D.C., January 6, 1961. commencement of their terms. Hon.
Recommended publications
  • LABQR-Mmgmemt REPOEHIG and DISCLOSURE ACT of 1959

    LABQR-Mmgmemt REPOEHIG and DISCLOSURE ACT of 1959

    Labor-management reporting and disclosure act of 1959; a case study in the legislative process Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Rusk, James Jarrett, 1934- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 08/10/2021 04:56:19 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/318874 LABQR-mMGMEMT REPOEHIG AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959 A CASE STUDY II THE LEGISLATEFfi PROCESS James Jarrett Rusk A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the ' Dl^ARTEElT OF GOVERlEilT ' In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements . For the Degree of . MASTER OF ARTS . In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZOM 1961 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in The University Library to be made available to bor­ rowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permis­ sion must be obtained from the author.
  • FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Washington, DC 20463 June 1, 2021 CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Via Email: Pryan@Commo

    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Washington, DC 20463 June 1, 2021 CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Via Email: Pryan@Commo

    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Washington, DC 20463 June 1, 2021 CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Via Email: [email protected] Paul S. Ryan Common Cause 805 15th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 RE: MUR 7324 Dear Mr. Ryan: The Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) has considered the allegations contained in your complaint dated February 20, 2018. The Commission found reason to believe that respondents David J. Pecker and American Media, Inc. knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). The Factual and Legal Analysis, which formed a basis for the Commission’s finding, is enclosed for your information. On May 17, 2021, a conciliation agreement signed by A360 Media, LLC, as successor in interest to American Media, Inc. was accepted by the Commission and the Commission closed the file as to Pecker and American Media, Inc. A copy of the conciliation agreement is enclosed for your information. There were an insufficient number of votes to find reason to believe that the remaining respondents violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”). Accordingly, on May 20, 2021, the Commission closed the file in MUR 7324. A Statement of Reasons providing a basis for the Commission’s decision will follow. Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See Disclosure of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702 (Aug. 2, 2016), effective September 1, 2016. MUR 7324 Letter to Paul S. Ryan Page 2 The Act allows a complainant to seek judicial review of the Commission’s dismissal of this action.
  • Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members

    Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members

    Order Code 93-875 Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Updated November 12, 2008 Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Summary The authority of the United States Senate (as well as of the House) to establish the rules for its own proceedings, to “punish” its Members for misconduct, and to expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of Members present and voting, is provided in the Constitution at Article I, Section 5, clause 2. This express grant of authority for the Senate to expel a Senator is, on its face, unlimited — save for the requirement of a two-thirds majority. In the context of what the Supreme Court has characterized as, in effect, an “unbridled discretion” of the body, expulsions in the Senate, as well as the House, have historically been reserved for cases of the most serious misconduct: disloyalty to the government or abuses of one’s official position. The Senate has actually expelled only 15 Members — 14 of those during the Civil War period for disloyalty to the Union (one of these expulsions was subsequently revoked by the Senate), and the other Senator during the late 1700s for disloyal conduct. The House of Representatives has expelled only five Members in its history, three during the Civil War period, one in 1980, and another in 2002, after convictions for bribery and corruption offenses related to official congressional duties. In the Senate, as well as in the House, however, other Members for whom expulsion was recommended have resigned from office prior to official, formal action by the institution.
  • Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem

    Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem

    VOLUME TWENTY FOUR • NUMBER TWO WINTER 2020 THE SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION A LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR KIDS Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem Battling Over for the States to Resolve How to Elect by Phyllis Raybin Emert a President by Michael Barbella Gerrymandering on a partisan basis is not new to politics. The term gerrymander dates back to the 1800s when it was used to mock The debate on how the President Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who manipulated congressional of the United States should be elected lines in the state until the map of one district looked like a salamander. is almost as old as the country itself. Redistricting, which is the redrawing of district maps, happens every Contrary to popular belief, voters 10 years after the U.S. Census takes place. Whatever political party is do not elect the president and vice in power at that time has the advantage since, in most states, they president directly; instead, they choose are in charge of drawing the maps. electors to form an Electoral College “Partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of politicians where the official vote is cast. drawing voting districts for their own political advantage,” During the Constitutional Convention says Eugene D. Mazo, a professor at Rutgers Law School and of 1787, a an expert on election law and the voting process. few ways to Professor Mazo explains that politicians, with the use of advanced computer elect the chief technology, use methods of “packing” and “cracking” to move voters around to executive were different state districts, giving the edge to one political party.
  • The Long Red Thread How Democratic Dominance Gave Way to Republican Advantage in Us House of Representatives Elections, 1964

    The Long Red Thread How Democratic Dominance Gave Way to Republican Advantage in Us House of Representatives Elections, 1964

    THE LONG RED THREAD HOW DEMOCRATIC DOMINANCE GAVE WAY TO REPUBLICAN ADVANTAGE IN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS, 1964-2018 by Kyle Kondik A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Baltimore, Maryland September 2019 © 2019 Kyle Kondik All Rights Reserved Abstract This history of U.S. House elections from 1964-2018 examines how Democratic dominance in the House prior to 1994 gave way to a Republican advantage in the years following the GOP takeover. Nationalization, partisan realignment, and the reapportionment and redistricting of House seats all contributed to a House where Republicans do not necessarily always dominate, but in which they have had an edge more often than not. This work explores each House election cycle in the time period covered and also surveys academic and journalistic literature to identify key trends and takeaways from more than a half-century of U.S. House election results in the one person, one vote era. Advisor: Dorothea Wolfson Readers: Douglas Harris, Matt Laslo ii Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....ii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..iv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..v Introduction: From Dark Blue to Light Red………………………………………………1 Data, Definitions, and Methodology………………………………………………………9 Chapter One: The Partisan Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution in the United States House of Representatives, 1964-1974…………………………...…12 Chapter 2: The Roots of the Republican Revolution:
  • Michigan Parliamentarian Publication of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians March 2018

    Michigan Parliamentarian Publication of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians March 2018

    The Michigan Parliamentarian Publication of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians March 2018 Greetings MSAP Members: I welcome you to join members, guests and friends as we gather to celebrate 50 years of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians at the Annual Meeting at Zehnders Restaurant in Frankenmuth on Saturday, April 14, 2018. This year’s meeting, hosted by the Genesee Area Unit, is guaranteed to be worth the trip to historic Frankenmuth. Not only for the great venue, and outstanding educational sessions but also to see old friends and make new ones as we celebrate 50 years as a state association. All the details you need to register are included in this edition of the newsletter. I think it would be fun to gather comments and stories about your best experience and fondest memories as a member of MSAP. Send them to me at [email protected]; or mail me a note to 628 N. Kalamazoo St, Paw Paw MI 49079. I will compile and share them at the annual meeting. If you can, plan to make it a weekend in Frankenmuth because on Friday, April 13, The Michigan United of Registered Parliamentarians will be holding their annual meeting with dinner followed by the quarterly meeting of MSAP and an educational lesson. Read on for more details for these meetings plus lodging information. I look forward to seeing you all in Frankenmuth in April! Julie Pioch, PRP MSAP President 1 | Page Updates MEETINGS – PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE MSAP celebrates its golden anniversary Submitted by: Gretchen Denton, MSAP Education Committee Chair The Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians is fifty years old in 2018 and its annual meeting will reflect that past, present, and future in its workshops with three topics that are important whether you’re a 50-year member or embarking on your parliamentary journey.
  • William F. Winter and the Politics of Racial Moderation in Mississippi

    William F. Winter and the Politics of Racial Moderation in Mississippi

    WILLIAM WINTER AND THE POLITICS OF RACIAL MODERATION 335 William F. Winter and the Politics of Racial Moderation in Mississippi by Charles C. Bolton On May 12, 2008, William F. Winter received the Profile in Courage Award from the John F. Kennedy Foundation, which honored the former Mississippi governor for “championing public education and racial equality.” The award was certainly well deserved and highlighted two important legacies of one of Mississippi’s most important public servants in the post–World War II era. During Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s presentation of the award, he noted that Winter had been criticized “for his integrationist stances” that led to his defeat in the gubernatorial campaign of 1967. Although Winter’s opponents that year certainly tried to paint him as a moderate (or worse yet, a liberal) and as less than a true believer in racial segregation, he would be the first to admit that he did not advocate racial integration in 1967; indeed, much to his regret later, Winter actually pandered to white segregationists in a vain attempt to win the election. Because Winter, over the course of his long career, has increasingly become identified as a champion of racial justice, it is easy, as Senator Kennedy’s remarks illustrate, to flatten the complexity of Winter’s evolution on the issue CHARLES C. BOLTON is the guest editor of this special edition of the Journal of Mississippi History focusing on the career of William F. Winter. He is profes- sor and head of the history department at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
  • The Potential for Presidential Leadership

    The Potential for Presidential Leadership

    THE WHITE HOUSE TRANSITION PROJECT 1997-2021 Smoothing the Peaceful Transfer of Democratic Power Report 2021—08 THE POTENTIAL FOR PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP George C. Edwards III, Texas A&M University White House Transition Project Smoothing the Peaceful Transfer of Democratic Power WHO WE ARE & WHAT WE DO The White House Transition Project. Begun in 1998, the White House Transition Project provides information about individual offices for staff coming into the White House to help streamline the process of transition from one administration to the next. A nonpartisan, nonprofit group, the WHTP brings together political science scholars who study the presidency and White House operations to write analytical pieces on relevant topics about presidential transitions, presidential appointments, and crisis management. Since its creation, it has participated in the 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, and now the 2021. WHTP coordinates with government agencies and other non-profit groups, e.g., the US National Archives or the Partnership for Public Service. It also consults with foreign governments and organizations interested in improving governmental transitions, worldwide. See the project at http://whitehousetransitionproject.org The White House Transition Project produces a number of materials, including: . WHITE HOUSE OFFICE ESSAYS: Based on interviews with key personnel who have borne these unique responsibilities, including former White House Chiefs of Staff; Staff Secretaries; Counsels; Press Secretaries, etc. , WHTP produces briefing books for each of the critical White House offices. These briefs compile the best practices suggested by those who have carried out the duties of these office. With the permission of the interviewees, interviews are available on the National Archives website page dedicated to this project: .
  • Lower Manhattan

    Lower Manhattan

    WASHINGTON STREET IS 131/ CANAL STREETCanal Street M1 bus Chinatown M103 bus M YMCA M NQRW (weekday extension) HESTER STREET M20 bus Canal St Canal to W 147 St via to E 125 St via 103 20 Post Office 3 & Lexington Avs VESTRY STREET to W 63 St/Bway via Street 5 & Madison Avs 7 & 8 Avs VARICK STREET B= YORK ST AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 6 only6 Canal Street Firehouse ACE LISPENARD STREET Canal Street D= LAIGHT STREET HOLLAND AT&T Building Chinatown JMZ CANAL STREET TUNNEL Most Precious EXIT Health Clinic Blood Church COLLISTER STREET CANAL STREET WEST STREET Beach NY Chinese B BEACH STStreet Baptist Church 51 Park WALKER STREET St Barbara Eldridge St Manhattan Express Bus Service Chinese Greek Orthodox Synagogue HUDSON STREET ®0= Merchants’ Fifth Police Church Precinct FORSYTH STREET 94 Association MOTT STREET First N œ0= to Lower Manhattan ERICSSON PolicePL Chinese BOWERY Confucius M Precinct ∑0= 140 Community Plaza Center 22 WHITE ST M HUBERT STREET M9 bus to M PIKE STREET X Grand Central Terminal to Chinatown84 Eastern States CHURCH STREET Buddhist Temple Union Square 9 15 BEACH STREET Franklin Civic of America 25 Furnace Center NY Chinatown M15 bus NORTH MOORE STREET WEST BROADWAY World Financial Center Synagogue BAXTER STREET Transfiguration Franklin Archive BROADWAY NY City Senior Center Kindergarten to E 126 St FINN Civil & BAYARD STREET Asian Arts School FRANKLIN PL Municipal via 1 & 2 Avs SQUARE STREET CENTRE Center X Street Courthouse Upper East Side to FRANKLIN STREET CORTLANDT ALLEY 1 Buddhist Temple PS 124 90 Criminal Kuan Yin World
  • The Case for an Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump

    The Case for an Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump

    Updated Preface: The Ukraine Connection The Case for an Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump Acknowledgments This report is made possible by the 1.2 million supporters of Common Cause who believe in setting higher ethical standards for public servants and who hold power accountable to the people, regardless of political party. Thanks also to the Why Not Initiative for its support for this report and our annual Blueprint for a Greater Democracy conference. This report was written by Karen Hobert Flynn, Paul Seamus Ryan, and Common Cause Legal Fellow William Steiner. The authors wish to acknowledge Susannah Goodman and Yosef Getachew for their review and input. Thank you to Scott Blaine Swenson, Dale Eisman, and Kerstin Vogdes Diehn for their support in production & promotion, copy editing, and design. This report was originally published in July 2019. A new preface was added to the report in October 2019. © July 2019; © October 2019 New Preface—October 2019 WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE LAUNCH OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY On a July 25th, 2019 phone call—one day after Common Cause originally published this report— President Donald Trump repeatedly pressured Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to work with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Shortly before the phone call, President Trump had ordered the withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine.1 By involving Attorney General Barr in his request for election assistance from the head of a foreign nation, perhaps using a foreign aid package as leverage, President Trump involved the Justice De- partment, State Department and Pentagon in an apparent effort to abuse his public office for private gain, an impeachable offense.
  • The 2020 Presidential Election: Provisions of the Constitution and U.S. Code

    The 2020 Presidential Election: Provisions of the Constitution and U.S. Code

    PREFACE The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is proud to acknowledge its role in the Presidential election pro- cess. NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) acts as the administrator of the Electoral College and carries out the duties of the Archivist. In this role, the OFR is charged with helping the States carry out their election responsibilities, ensuring the completeness and integrity of the Electoral College documents submitted to Congress, and informing the public about the Presidential election process. The Electoral College system was established under Article II and Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution. In each State, the voters choose electors to select the President and Vice President of the United States, based on the results of the Novem- ber general election. Before the general election, the Archivist officially notifies each State’s governor and the Mayor of the District of Columbia of their electoral responsibilities. OFR provides instructions and resources to help the States and District of Columbia carry out those responsibilities. As the results of the popular vote are finalized in each state, election officials create Certificates of Ascertainment, which establish the credentials of their electors, that are sent to OFR. In December, the electors hold meetings in their States to vote for President and Vice President. The electors seal Certificates of Vote and send them to the OFR and Congress. In January, Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President and Vice President. In the year after the election, electoral documents are held at the OFR for public viewing, and then transferred to the Archives of the United States for permanent retention and access.
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 152, Pt. 7 May 25, 2006 EXECUTIVE SESSION NAYS—30 Mr

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 152, Pt. 7 May 25, 2006 EXECUTIVE SESSION NAYS—30 Mr

    9602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 152, Pt. 7 May 25, 2006 EXECUTIVE SESSION NAYS—30 Mr. Kavanaugh was a deputy, with as Akaka Durbin Levin many as nine other such deputies on Baucus Feingold Menendez his level. Bayh Harkin Mikulski He was candid in some criticism of NOMINATION OF BRETT M. Bingaman Inouye Murray Boxer Jeffords Reed the handling of the matter; the public KAVANAUGH TO BE UNITED Cantwell Johnson Reid release of the report was not the choos- STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR Clinton Kennedy Sarbanes ing of Independent Counsel. He testi- THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dayton Kerry Schumer Dodd Lautenberg Stabenow fied that he believed that the Inde- CIRCUIT—Resumed Dorgan Leahy Wyden pendent Counsel statute ought to be The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under NOT VOTING—3 changed materially if it was to be re- the previous order, the Chair lays be- vised and that having Mr. Starr both Conrad Rockefeller Salazar fore the Senate the pending cloture on Whitewater and the impeachment of motion, which the clerk will state. The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this the President was too much. The legislative clerk read as follows: vote, the ayes are 67, the nays are 30. He wrote a law review article on the Three-fifths of the Senators duly cho- CLOTURE MOTION issue of peremptory challenges for sen and sworn having voted in the af- Black jurors and took the position that We the undersigned Senators, in accord- firmative, the motion is agreed to. ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the it was inappropriate, should not be Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby The PRESIDING OFFICER.