Introduction

The claim that at least 50 Donald Trump electors were illegally seated in the Electoral College has been a contentious topic in recent years. This article aims to dissect this claim, examining its historical context, the applicable laws, and the practical implications, to determine whether this assertion holds any merit.

Understanding the Electoral College

The Electoral College is a constitutional body composed of electors who formally cast votes in presidential elections. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its total number of representatives (Senators and Representatives) in the U.S. Congress. This number can increase after the census every decade. If no candidate receives a majority, the House of Representatives votes to determine the next president.

A Review of Legal Framework

Those advocating the invalidation of Trump electors often cite constitutional and state legislature provisions, suggesting that specific individuals were improperly seated. However, a critical examination of these claims reveals that they are based on misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the relevant laws.

No Constitutional Ban on State Officeholders Serving as Electors

The Constitution does not prohibit state officeholders from serving as electors. While there are restrictions on federal officials, such as members of Congress and federal officers, there are no such prohibitions on state officials. The argument that states cannot add qualifications to those listed in the Constitution is also flawed, as the Constitution allows for states to determine the manner of selecting electors within the limits set by the Constitution.

Electors Are Not Considered Federal Officials

Further, electors are not considered federal officials, and thus, state dual-office laws do not apply to them. This means that prosecuting electors based on state dual-office laws would be ineffective. Additionally, electors are not required to live in a specific congressional district, and states cannot add such requirements.

Practical Considerations and Historical Context

The notion of challenging 50 electors is neither novel nor practical. In the 2016 election, a majority of electoral votes certified Trump as the winner. Yet, after the election, the same side that demanded he honor the results now seeks to de-legitimize the outcome. This inconsistency raises questions about strategic ignoring rather than genuine concern for election integrity.

Electors as Repeat Candidates

The names of electors typically do not appear on the ballot; instead, people vote for a set of pledged candidates. In the vast majority of cases, electors are chosen based on the candidates’ popularity and party loyalty, rather than individual merit. It is highly unlikely that a change in electors would have altered the outcome of the election. If other electors had been chosen under the stringent conditions proposed, the result may have remained unchanged and the public would likely have remained unaware of the change.

Conclusion

The claim that 50 Donald Trump electors were illegally seated is a misinterpretation of the constitutional and legal framework governing the Electoral College. Rather than serving as evidence of election fraud or illegitimacy, such claims reflect strategic ignoring of the victories won through fair and transparent means. The election's legitimacy is upheld by the vast majority of circumstances and procedures, which are designed to ensure a fair and unbiased outcome.