Another Way To Elect A President: The Death of a Candidate (Part 7)
Nov 1, 2020
auto_awesome
Larry and Jason, contributors to an op-ed on the electoral process, delve into the rarely discussed topic of a presidential candidate's death during an election. They explore the 20th Amendment and its constitutional ramifications, including historical precedents and the complexities of state laws. The duo also examines the electoral implications, from conflicting elector obligations to navigating challenges in swing states, highlighting legal dilemmas and historical case studies that reflect the fragile balance of democracy during unprecedented situations.
The 20th Amendment's provisions regarding the death of a presidential candidate highlight significant legal ambiguities affecting electoral processes.
State laws governing electors' votes may conflict with constitutional responsibilities, raising concerns about democratic integrity and potential legal disputes.
Deep dives
Understanding the 20th Amendment
The 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution primarily altered the timeline for the beginning of congressional and presidential terms, moving them from March 4th to January 3rd and January 20th, respectively. This change was intended to streamline the electoral process and ensure that newly elected Congress members could tally the electoral votes. An additional lesser-known aspect of the amendment addresses scenarios involving the death of presidential candidates. Historical events, particularly those surrounding the elections in 1924, catalyzed discussions about what contingency plans should be put in place for such tragic occurrences.
Implications of Candidate Death Before Electoral College Voting
The amendment outlines specific provisions for what happens if a president-elect dies after electors have cast their votes but lacks clarity for cases where a candidate dies before this stage. For instance, while it clearly states that if a president-elect dies before their term begins, the vice president-elect steps in as president, it does not specify the actions to be taken if a candidate passes away prior to the electoral vote. Consequently, this situation leaves a gap where electors may have the discretion to choose a replacement candidate, but the legal parameters for this choice remain ambiguous. Past instances of candidates dying shortly before elections underscore the importance of addressing this issue to prevent confusion and ensure democratic integrity.
State Laws and Elector Discretion
A majority of states have enacted laws that restrict the discretion of electors, requiring them to vote in accordance with the popular vote outcome. However, only a few states explicitly provide courses of action for instances when a candidate dies after the election but before the electoral college voting. Many states make no provisions for this eventuality, which leads to potential challenges regarding how electors fulfill their obligations. The existing state laws add complexity to the issue, as they could conflict with the electorate's responsibility to vote for a living candidate, complicating the outcomes in difficult scenarios.
Potential Outcomes of Candidate Death Scenarios
The discussions reveal a significant concern surrounding what would happen if a candidate dies before or shortly after the popular vote but prior to the electoral college's decision. The situation raises questions about whether the legislature or an executive authority would intervene to ensure electors are not bound to vote for someone deceased and how legal challenges may arise regarding electoral votes. Litigation could develop if electors attempt to act outside of state laws, especially in circumstances where the death of a candidate might influence the political landscape significantly. This complex interplay of state laws and consequences has the potential to lead to constitutional disputes, underscoring the necessity for clarity in state and federal electoral processes.