• Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s the problem with the patchwork of laws.

    Ohio has a law that says the candidates must be declared by August 9th, but the DNC isn’t until after that. (But Ohio cleared the way for that, as you noted.)

    Nevada, however, requires that the political parties submit their candidates when the state convention is held by a given party, and does not seem to have an actual cut-off date.

    Each major political party shall, at the state convention of the major political party held in that year, select from the qualified electors who are legally registered members of the major political party: (a) A nominee to the position of presidential elector; and (b) An alternate to the nominee for presidential elector.

    I’m actually somewhat confused on this one - the Democratic Nevada convention was May 18th, but the article I posted above says their cut-off was June 28th. Both dates have passed, mind you. But I wonder where the June 28th date came from.

    The deadline for Georgia was July 9th - yesterday.

    My information for both Nevada and Georgia came from Ballotpedia. The page also notes that many states have their filing deadlines before the DNC, but it’s my understanding that the Democratic Party plans to deal with this by nominating him via conference call in advance of these deadlines - so I think the clock is about a month shorter than people may consider, when looking at the date of the DNC.

    I don’t know why the first article I posted mentions Wisconsin. I think you’re right - if Biden withdraws and releases his delegates before the nomination deadlines/conference call to make it official, many states (such as Wisconsin) won’t be an issue. I’m unclear if democrats can submit an alternative candidate in Georgia, and I think they can only offer up the alternative candidate they would have specified during their convention for Nevada.

    Nevada is fairly reliably democrat-leaning, and Georgia has been changing a lot lately, with expectations to swing democrat again. Even if democrats did lose Georgia, the state would still be a battleground, which saps resources from the republican presidential effort. (Side note: If that played out and democrats couldn’t field a candidate. I would expect third party or write-in candidates to get an outsized proportion of the vote. That could be a great opportunity for third parties to perhaps get legal recognition and benefits that comes with that.)

    It does seem like slightly less of an issue now that I’ve dug a bit deeper into it. However who knows how things will go in states without defined laws - that could be a boondoggle if injunctions get filed.
    But there are legal issues already, and those will continue to grow as time goes on.

    I don’t know, man.

    • Hamartia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      If Biden, god forbid, had a stroke tonight and was lying in a coma, is there no facility to change the candidate to someone else. Or would you be locked in to voting for a candidate in a vegative state?

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Hmm…I wasn’t aware of the stipulations surrounding Nevada, that’s actually a bit worrisome. Thanks for pointing this out, will need to read up on it more. I honestly think GA is a lost cause this year for the Dems but we shall see.

      Keen for the possibility you laid out for 3rd parties to get a foothold, hoping to see that exact scenario unfold! There are many who feel reforming the Dems is the only way towards the Left, but the party seems like such a lost cause. If only a populist 3rd party candidate could get just a small foothold, I could see voters backing them in monumental droves within just 1 election cycle. Ah, the dream.

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Well, someone pointed out that the Nevada statute quoted was for their electoral college candidates, not the president. (I had noted the word elector, but figured it was goofy legal terminology.)
        I couldn’t then figure out what the actual Nevada statute for presidential nominees are (it seems they’re different depending on whether the nominee is part of a major political party).

        Nevada may still pose an issue but I can’t argue they are with as much confidence. I just can’t figure out the actual laws around it with my own eyes and brain.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Each major political party shall, at the state convention of the major political party held in that year, select from the qualified electors who are legally registered members of the major political party: (a) A nominee to the position of presidential elector; and (b) An alternate to the nominee for presidential elector.

      I’m actually somewhat confused on this one - the Democratic Nevada convention was May 18th, but the article I posted above says their cut-off was June 28th. Both dates have passed, mind you. But I wonder where the June 28th date came from.

      These are rules for selecting the electors, not the candidates. They’re the “elector” part of the “electoral college”.

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think you’re right on that front, which makes it doubly frustrating – because then you got multiple websites parroting bad information. And in turn, I may have parroted bad information.

        I spent a few hours trying to find the relevant statutes to understand what was “right”, and not one made sense to me. It seems like they have different rules for major parties vs independent candidates, but fuck if I could figure out the rules for major parties.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          It does seem weird that these things are so opaque, right? If you get to the right place you can find the Democrats’ rules, but the voting clause isn’t 100% unambiguous. It says you have to “in good conscience” represent the will of the voters that sent you. And on top of that there are a bunch of state laws about the delegates, but it’s unclear which ones are even legal as the Supreme Court said the parties are private entities and the states can’t tell them how to run their business.