WASHINGTON DC: Saturday’s election verdict isn’t the last step in selecting an American president. Under a system that’s been tweaked over two centuries, there is still a monthslong timeline during which the 538-member Electoral College picks the president.
A look at the key steps:
— When American citizens vote for a presidential candidate, they really are voting for electors in their state. Those electors in most cases are committed to support the voters’ candidate of choice. The number of electors is equal to the number of electoral votes held by each state. State laws vary on how electors are selected but, generally, a slate of electors for each party’s candidate is chosen at state party conventions or by a vote of a party’s central committee.
— After Election Day, states count and certify the results of the popular vote. When completed, each governor is required by law to prepare “as soon as practicable” documents known as “Certificates of Ascertainment” of the vote. The certificates list the electors’ names and the number of votes cast for the winner and loser. The certificate, carrying the seal of each state, is sent to the archivist of the United States.
— Dec. 8 is the deadline for resolving election disputes at the state level. All state recounts and court contests over presidential election results are to be completed by this date.
— Dec. 14: Electors vote by paper ballot in their respective states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-three states and D.C. have laws or party regulations requiring electors to vote the same way the popular vote goes in the state, and in some states, electors can even be replaced or subjected to penalties, according to the Congressional Research Service. The votes for president and vice president are counted and the electors sign six “Certificates of the Vote.” The certificates, along with other official papers, are sent by registered mail to various officials, including the president of the Senate.
— Dec. 23: The certificates must be delivered to the designated officials. If they are not delivered, the law provides alternative avenues for getting the results to Washington.
— Jan. 6, 2021: The House and Senate hold a joint session to count the electoral votes. If one ticket has received 270 or more electoral votes, the president of the Senate, currently Vice President Mike Pence, announces the results.
Members of Congress may object to returns from any state as they are announced. Objections must be made in writing by at least one member of the House and one in the Senate. If the objection meets certain requirements, each chamber meets separately to debate the objection for a maximum of two hours. Afterward, each chamber votes to accept or reject the objection. Back in joint session, the results of the respective votes are announced. Any objection to a state’s electoral vote has to be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.
If neither presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes, the House decides the election, based on the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. If required, the House would elect the president through a majority vote.
— Jan. 20: The president-elect is sworn into office on Inauguration Day.
What’s next? US election verdict is not last step to a Biden White House
https://arab.news/468ru
What’s next? US election verdict is not last step to a Biden White House
- Under a system that’s been tweaked over two centuries, there is still a monthslong timeline
National security trial for Hong Kong’s Tiananmen vigil organizers to open
- Three government-vetted judges will preside over the trial, which is expected to last 75 days
HONG KONG: Two pro-democracy activists behind a group that for decades organized a vigil that commemorated people killed in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989 will stand trial on Thursday, in another landmark case brought under a China-imposed national security law that has practically crushed protests in the semiautonomous Chinese city.
Critics say their case shows that Beijing’s promise to keep the city’s Western-style civil liberties intact for 50 years when the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 has weakened over time. But the city’s government said its law enforcement actions were evidence-based and strictly in accordance with the law.
Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan, former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were charged with incitement to subversion in September 2021 under the law. They are accused of inciting others to organize, plan or act through unlawful means with a view to subvert state power, and if convicted, they face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
A third leader of the group, Albert Ho, is expected to plead guilty, his lawyer said previously. This might result in a sentence reduction.
Before sunrise, dozens of people were in line outside the court building to secure a seat in the public gallery under a cold-weather warning.
Tang Ngok-kwan, a former core member of the alliance, has been queuing since Monday afternoon. He said he wanted to show support for his former colleagues in detention.
“They use their freedom to exchange for a dignified defense,” he said. “It’s about being accountable to history.”
Former pro-democracy district councilor Chan Kim-kam, a former vigil-goer and also Chow’s friend, stayed awake the whole night outside the building.
“We need to witness this, regardless of the results,” she said.
Trial expected to last 75 days
Three government-vetted judges will preside over the trial, which is expected to last 75 days. Videos related to the alliance’s years of work will be part of the prosecution evidence.
Chow, also a lawyer defending herself, tried to throw out her case in November, arguing the prosecution had not specified what “unlawful means” were involved. But the judges rejected her bid.
The judges explained their decision on Wednesday, saying the prosecution made it clear that “unlawful means” meant ending the Chinese Communist Party’s rule and violating the Chinese constitution. The prosecution accused the defendants of promoting the call of “ending one-party rule” by inciting people’s hatred of and disgust over the state’s power, the judges said.
The prosecution, they said, had pointed to the defendants’ media interviews and public speeches related to the alliance to sustain the group’s operation and promote that call to others after the security law took effect in June 2020. Although the scope of the charge was relatively wide, the prosecutors had provided sufficient details for the defendants, they added.
The court will not allow the trial to become a tool of political suppression in the name of law, the judges said.
Prosecutors are expected to detail their case this week.
Urania Chiu, lecturer in law at Oxford Brookes University, said the case goes to the heart of freedom of expression.
“The prosecution case hinges on the argument that the Alliance’s general call for ‘bringing the one-party rule to an end’ constitutes subversion without more, which amounts to criminalizing an idea, a political ideal that is very far from being actualized,” she said.
Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director, alleged the case was about “rewriting history and punishing those who refuse to forget the victims of the Tiananmen crackdown.”
Alliance’s disbandment a blow to civil society
The alliance was best known for organizing the only large-scale public commemoration of the 1989 crackdown in China for decades. Tens of thousands of people attended it annually until authorities banned it in 2020, citing anti-pandemic measures.
After COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, the park was occupied instead by a carnival organized by pro-Beijing groups. Those who tried to commemorate the event near the site were detained.
Before the alliance voted to disband in September 2021, police had sought details about the group, saying they had reasonable grounds to believe it was acting as a foreign agent. The alliance rejected the allegations and refused to cooperate.
Chow, Tang, another core member of the alliance were convicted in a separate case in 2023 for failing to provide authorities with information on the group and were each sentenced to 4 1/2 months in prison. But the trio overturned their convictions at the city’s top court in March 2025.
Chow, Lee and Ho have been in custody, awaiting the trial’s opening, which has been postponed twice.
Beijing said the 2020 security law was necessary for the city’s stability following the 2019 protests, which sent hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets.
The same law has convicted dozens of other leading pro-democracy activists, including pro-democracy former media mogul Jimmy Lai last month. Dozens of civil society groups have closed since the law took effect.
