"According to Congressional intent and past precedent, there is no President-Elect."

The media and the democrats have falsely been using the term 'President Elect' in order to manipulate people into mistakenly believing that Joe Biden won the election. Congressman Jody Hice, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, recently issued a letter to correct the democrats' fraudulent use of terminology, and to remind the General Services Administration (GSA) to adhere to the Constitution. 

Arguably the key sentence from the letter is this:

"According to Congressional intent and past precedent set by President Clinton, as of today, there is no apparent President-Elect."

Page 1

The full text of the letter is reproduced below:

"Dear Administrator Murphy:

On November 9, 2020, Democratic House Members sent you a letter that misrepresented the facts surrounding your responsibilities under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (Act).^[1] I write to correct the record.^[2] However, this assistance can only occur after there are “apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator [you].”^[3]

There are enough state contests in question, such that there is not yet an apparent President or Vice-President-Elect. Precedent and legislative history present three situations where there may be an un-apparent President-Elect:

1. The drafters of the Act anticipated three electoral situations where there would be an unapparent President-Elect: (1) a tie, (2) a plurality winner, or (3) the presence of extensive voter fraud or intimidation.^[4] The third being applicable to 2020 since the Trump campaign has raised questions and filed legal challenges in several states;

Page 2

2. The drafters concluded that “if there is any doubt in the Administrator’s mind” the Administrator does not have to release transition assistance.^[5] Since states have not yet certified an electoral winner and some states are still tabulating legal ballots, there remains doubt as to the winner; and

3. The precedent set by the Clinton Administration in the contested 2000 election is that to ascertain an apparent President-Elect there would need to be a concession—which has not yet occurred in 2020—or no more legitimate continuing legal challenges—which has not yet occurred in 2020.^[6]

According to Congressional intent and past precedent set by President Clinton, as of today, there is no apparent President-Elect.

A GSA spokesman recently stated that “the GSA Administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution.”^[7] I strongly encourage you to do just that: follow the Constitution and past precedent, not the media, when making your determination of the President-Elect. This democracy relies on a rule of law and the law must be followed.

Sincerely,

Jody Hice
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Government Operations

[1] Letter from Gerry Connolly, et. al., Member of Congress, to Emily Murphy, Administrator, U.S. Gen. Serv. Admin. (Nov. 9, 2020) available at https://connolly.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4126; See Presidential Transition Act of 1963, Pub. L. No. 88-277, § 3(c), 78 Stat. 153 (1964).

[2] Id.

[3] Id (emphasis added).

[4] Transitioning to a New Administration: Can the Next President be Ready: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Gov’t Mgmt, Information, and Technology, Comm. on Gov’t Reform, 106th Cong, 2nd Session, (Dec. 4, 2000) (Prepared Statement of Paul C. Light).

[5] Id. 

[6] Id.

[7] Courtney Buble, GSA Holds the Key to When or If Biden Gets Access to Full Transition Resources, GOV’T EXEC. (Nov. 6, 2020), https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/11/gsa-faces-tricky-decision-ascertaining-electionwinner-formally-kicking-transition/169854/."

- - - - - - - - - -

The original pdf of the letter can be found at the following link:
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Letter-to-GSA-re-Transition-final-11.13.20-1.pdf