More Senate Republicans on Monday announced their opposition to the plan by colleagues to object to electoral votes on Jan. 6.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), up for reelection in 2022, said in a statement that he supports President Donald Trump but that “under the Constitution, states are responsible for our elections, and the people, through the Electoral College, elect the president.”
“Each state certifies its electoral vote, not Congress. The people of North Dakota do not want Congress to determine their vote, and we should not set the precedent by doing it for other states. Therefore, I do not plan to object,” he added.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who won election in 2018 with Trump’s backing, also said he won’t be backing the push to challenge electoral votes during the joint session of Congress.
“While I share the concerns of those who plan to object, the Founding Fathers did not design a system where the federal legislative branch could reject a state’s certified choice for president in favor of their own. They created the Electoral College—and gave state legislatures the authority to decide how electors are chosen—to ensure small states like North Dakota have a voice at the national level that cannot be silenced by large states like New York and California, and the opposite is also true,” he said in a statement.
“I do not have the authority to overturn the will of other states on behalf of North Dakota, nor do other members have the ability to overturn the will of my state.”
And Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who won another term in 2020 with an endorsement from Trump, said she would not object to electoral votes.
“Some have argued that the electoral votes of several states should be rejected due to fraud. Our Constitution contemplates each state holding its own election and certifying electors who will cast ballots for president. It would be a grave step for Congress to refuse to count electoral votes that are certified by their state government,” she said in a statement.
“At an absolute minimum, I believe that Congress should only consider rejecting the electoral votes certified by a state when there is clear and convincing evidence both that there was misconduct in that state’s election and that the result of the election would have been different absent that misconduct.”