Well, not exactly. Piezo gave the correct answer. No mention of the individual State's electoral votes in his correct citation of the Constitution.
Idiot Is irregardless a word?: Usage Guide Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. First Known Use of irregardless 1795, in the meaning defined above
That's because the passage he cherry-picked (and left out most of for context purposes) describes what happens AFTER The Electoral College AND The House have decided that there is not a President-Elect nor Vice President-Elect. My answer is the definitive and correct response of how your situation would be handled. ie--The Electoral College meets and a new Presidential term starts Jan 20. This is what was posed. There will be no martial law, no old president "hang on. fill in" and no delay of the start of the new term. Your question specifically was "Does Trump still get to be President after January 20th?" I gave you the correct answer.
As you can see here, the state legislature would have the right to send whatever electors to The Electoral College that they wanted to. POS's copy and paste of the analysis of Bush v Gore is moot other than the fact that it shows that the Supreme Court has the right to overturn unconstitutional rulings of the state supreme courts. Thank goodness we had Antonin Scalia---a great patriot. Even if the Supreme Court had decided differently in Bush v. Gore, the Florida Legislature had been meeting in Special Session since December 8 with the sole stated purpose being the selection of a slate of electors on December 12, should the dispute still be ongoing. Had the recount gone forward, it would have awarded those electors to Bush, based on the state-certified vote, and the likely last recourse for Gore would have been to contest the electors in the United States Congress. The electors would then only have been rejected if both GOP-controlled houses had agreed to reject them.
Until the outcome of a Presidential election in each state is known, the electors in each state to be sent to the EC can not be known. This is one of the situations the 20th amendment speaks to. The language used in the twentieth Amendment regarding whether someone "has qualified" or not to be President or Vice President is intentionally broad, as it covers all cases and circumstances under which a candidate may be found to have not qualified. To maintain compatibility with the 20th Amendment, similar language as to a President-elect or vice President-elect not having qualified by inauguration day is adopted in the 1947 law dealing with, and expanding, the order of succession to the Presidency: (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act) ...based on authority granted by Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment, the act applies to situations where the president-elect, alone or together with the vice president-elect, fails to meet the qualifications for the office of President. Based on that same authority, the act also applies to situations in which there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect on Inauguration Day. [underlining mine] comment.... You are correct in that the manner of choosing electors is left up to each state's legislature... In the case of Florida, they by have, by law, chosen to send, to the EC, electors for the winner of the state wide election. They are a winner take all state. Under Florida State law, Florida can not designate which electors are to vote in the EC until the election results are certified. The court battle was over certification, not about electors, and no electors could be sent until the matter of whether the recount was to be allowed to be completed was settled. The Court erred in staying the recount, because in light of the 20th Amendment there was no urgency. Instead the Court created an unnecessary urgency by ignoring the existence of the 20Th and imposing U.S. code instead. This is one of the several reasons many legal scholars consider Bush v. Gore to be one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court.
This would only be true were they to change their state law making the selection of electors independent of the state wide vote. Such an action would be certain to be declared unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and under Article II, as well. What Florida legislature was intending was to use the safe harbor provision in the selection of electors, hence the Deadline (if I recall it was Dec. 12).
Get better candidates- rather than Gore and Hillary types- rather than trying to figure out to improve your bean-counting methodology to help your losers. You got a good candidate anywhere in that current dem line-up where you dont have to worry about hanging chads? After all Trump is the worst president in history right? Didn't think so.
For anyone interested in the final conclusion on the 2000 Florida vote count I found this in the Wiki article on Bush v. Gore In 2001, a consortium of news organizations, assisted by professional statisticians (NORC), examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting all the Florida ballots. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected. In each alternative way of recounting the rejected ballots, the number of additional votes for Gore was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush. Under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. Likewise, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. On the other hand, the study also found that if the official vote-counting standards had not rejected ballots containing overvotes (where a voter selects more than one candidate in a race where each voter may only choose one candidate) a statewide tally would have resulted in Gore emerging as the victor by 60 to 171 votes. These tallies conducted by the NORC consortium are caveated with the statement: "But no study of this type can accurately recreate Election Day 2000 or predict what might have emerged from individual battles over more than 6 million votes in Florida's 67 counties."[79][80] Florida also received an additional 2,411 overseas ballots after the 7 PM deadline on election day. Florida officials rejected these overseas ballots, mostly from members of the United States Armed Forces. By rejecting those ballots, Florida provided Gore a 202-vote lead in the state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on December 8, 2000, overturned these rejections and ordered that all federal write-in ballots previously rejected be counted. The effect of these additional overseas ballots provided Bush with a 537-vote lead in the state. The ruling also noted:[81] Service personnel give up many things when they enter the military, including the free exercise of some civil rights enjoyed by civilians at home. The sacrifice should not go beyond the surrender of rights that are incompatible with military duties. These men and women of our Armed Forces should be able to expect as much and no less, because of their induction into military service, than those of us who remain at home pursuing normal activities. It certainly would appear unnecessary that our soldiers and sailors and merchant marines must make a special effort to retain the right to vote. The subsequent analysis revealed that black-majority precincts had three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts. "For minorities, the ballot survey found, a recount would not have redressed the inequities because most ballots were beyond retrieving. But a recount could have restored the votes of thousands of older voters whose dimpled and double-voted ballots were indecipherable to machines but would have been clear in a ballot-by-ballot review."[82] The ballot review later conducted by a consortium of news organizations did not have access to these decisive ballots, which in many cases had disappeared and could not be produced.
It dismays me when I see folks talking about The Constitution that know nearly nothing about it. There is not now and has never been a requirement for Electors to be chosen by popular vote. That is up to the states and can be easily changed by the state legislatures at any time whether before or after certification. It is the state's legislature that determines the manner of selecting Electors. Gore never had any leg to stand on despite your liberal claptrap analysis of Bush v Gore. This is what I typically see from Leftists-----"revisionist constitutional analysis" to get the answer they want. In this case, the Florida legislature was set to send Bush electors since certification was done, but they could have done so at any time.