1/1 On @seanhannity last night (at 5:56 of this clip), @SenTedCruz said that the Hayes-Tilden Commission was "charged with reviewing the evidence and making a determination about the disputed ballots." That's incorrect. The Commission was tasked with determining which rival ...

2/2 ... group of electors was appointed by the authority within state government entitled to make that appointment at the time the electors cast their votes on the constitutionally required day. Justice Joseph Bradley, who was held the intentionally tiebreaking seat on the ...
3/3 ... 15-member Commission, explained his decision in favor of Hayes by saying that it was NOT the Commission's authority (NOR Congress's, from which the Commission derived its subsidiary power) to determine whether the state properly counted its popular vote. Instead, ...
4/4 ...it was the Commission's job to figure out which of the competing claims was correct concerning who had authority under state law to make the determination upon which the appointment of electors would be based. For Florida, Bradley ruled that the state's canvassing board...
5/5... had this authority at the time the electors voted & thus Congress was obligated to accept the votes cast by the electors that the canvassing board had appointed, and this was true even if the canvassing board's appointment was based on a mistake or even fraud affecting ...
6/6...the counting of the state's popular vote. Bradley is absolutely clear on this: "It is the business and jurisdiction of the State to prevent frauds from being perpetrated in the appointment of its electors, and not the business or jurisdiction of the Congress." He goes on...
7/7 ...to explain that Florida could have corrected the fraud or mistake in counting its popular vote BEFORE the electors met, and then Congress would have been obligated to accept the amended appointment of electors. BUT Florida was constitutionally required under Article II ...
8/8 ... to make any such correction BEFORE the day that must be uniform in all states for the meeting of electors. AFTER that day (for 2000 election, Dec. 14), any attempt by a state to change its appointment of electors is "unconstitutional and void" (Bradley's words). ...
9/9 ... For more details, see pages 135-135 of BALLOT BATTLES. What @SenTedCruz proposes for his commission is directly contrary to the Hayes-Tilden Commission precedent upon which he's relying. @SenTedCruz is simply misreading, or distorting, the relevant Hayes-Tilden history.

More from News

You May Also Like

“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?