Skip to content Skip to footer

Stephen Miller: Trump Can Still Win With “Alternate” Electoral College Electors

Neither the U.S. Constitution, nor federal or state laws, back up Miller’s claims about “alternate” electors.

White House Advisor Stephen Miller does a television interview outside of the White House on July 15, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, electors across the country participated in the Electoral College, the official mechanism for choosing the next president of the United States. But while the official voting was taking place, a group of Republicans supportive of President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud took part in an “alternate” version of the Electoral College, which is apparently supported by the White House itself.

Appearing on Fox News on Monday, Trump’s senior adviser Stephen Miller explained that the separate group of individuals in a number of states the president’s campaign has contested would be putting forward their own votes, contradicting President-elect Joe Biden’s indisputable victory in states like Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Miller asserted, wrongly, that the move fits with the rules of the U.S. Constitution.

“The only date in the Constitution is January 20,” Miller said on the program. “So we have more than enough time to right the wrong of this fraudulent election result and certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election.”

While electors cast their votes for president, “an alternate slate of electors in contested states is going to vote and we’re going to send those results up to Congress,” Miller went on to say. “This will ensure that all of our legal remedies remain open. That means if we win these cases in the courts, that we can direct that the alternate slate of electors be certified.”

Miller’s assertions, however, do not comport with the laws or Constitution of the United States.

There is no provision in the Constitution, nor within the federal legal code and state electoral processes, that allows for an “alternate” slate of electors to be used in the Electoral College to vote for a candidate for president, in the event of a court challenge.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” According to U.S. Code, that date has been set to be “on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” — which, in this year’s presidential election, was Monday, December 14.

Beyond that, well before the January 20 date Miller cited, the certification of the Electoral College votes by Congress occurs on January 6. While it’s true that the certification can be objected to, rejecting one or multiple electors’ votes requires approval from both houses of Congress to happen.

Some lawmakers have indicated their intent to object to the official Electoral College tally next month. However, given that the House of Representatives is controlled by the Democratic Party (and that Senate control is not yet determined), it would be very unlikely that such objections would be effective.

Most election experts have noted that the scheme Miller discussed on Monday morning would not hold up under the current interpretation of U.S. law, nor under state laws where the “alternate” votes are happening.

“They have no authority if they’re just saying they’re self-appointed, and even if they were appointed by the legislature, it’s too late,” contested elections expert Ned Foley, law professor at Ohio State University, said in an interview with Vice. “You’d have to get some authority under state law beforehand for these electors to matter.”

None of the “alternate” groups of electors received such authority.

Briefly, we wanted to update you on where Truthout stands this month.

To be brutally honest, Truthout is behind on our fundraising goals for the year. There are a lot of reasons why. We’re dealing with broad trends in our industry, trends that have led publications like Vice, BuzzFeed, and National Geographic to make painful cuts. Everyone is feeling the squeeze of inflation. And despite its lasting importance, news readership is declining.

To ensure we stay out of the red by the end of the year, we have a long way to go. Our future is threatened.

We’ve stayed online over two decades thanks to the support of our readers. Because you believe in the power of our work, share our transformative stories, and give to keep us going strong, we know we can make it through this tough moment.

At this moment, we have 24 hours left in our important fundraising campaign, and we still must raise $23,000. Please consider making a donation today.