2016 United States presidential election in Utah, Background
Although Barack Obama's approval rating in the RealClearPolitics poll tracking average remained between 40 and 50 percent for most of his second term, it experienced a surge in early 2016 and reached its highest point since 2012 during June of that year. Analyst Nate Cohn noted that a strong approval rating for President Obama would equate to a strong performance for the Democratic candidate, and vice versa.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, Background
Following his second term, President Obama was not eligible for another reelection. In October 2015, Obama's running-mate and two-term Vice President Biden decided not to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination either. With their term expiring on January 20, 2017, the electorate was asked to elect a new president, the 45th president and 48th vice president of the United States, respectively.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, General election, Political landscape in Utah
The state of Utah has given its electoral votes to the Republican ticket in every election year since 1968 and only once voted for a Democratic candidate in elections since 1952 (in 1964). The state has a majority of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) population, which on the national level voted 78 percent to 21 percent for Mitt Romney in 2012. This very heavily contributed to Mitt Romney winning the state by a margin of 73 percent to 25 percent in the 2012 election.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, General election, Political landscape in Utah
However, Donald Trump's criticism of Romney's faith on the campaign trail in 2016 angered many Republican voters. Polls suggested that Utah might be a strong state for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson as a protest vote against Trump. As a result, Larry Sabato's online election forecaster, Sabato's Crystal Ball, downgraded their rating of the Utah contest from "Safe Republican" to "Likely Republican" on June 23.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, General election, Political landscape in Utah
Evan McMullin, a conservative independent candidate, had also been viewed by voters in Utah as another alternative, given that it is also his home state. According to one poll released on October 12, Trump and Clinton were seen as virtually tied in Utah at 26%, with McMullin polling at 22%. McMullin's rise was the result of further Republican backlash against Trump following the release of a controversial video from 2005 showing Trump bragging about obscene sexual conduct with women.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, General election, Political landscape in Utah
In a HeatStreet poll conducted from October 15–16, McMullin was polled in second place with 29% of likely voters, coming behind Trump who polled at 30%, and ahead of Clinton who polled at 28 percent. In a poll conducted by Emerson College from October 17–19 with a sample size of 700 people, McMullin placed first with 31 percent ahead of Trump by a 4 percent margin, who had 27 percent of support, while Clinton polled in third at 24 percent. This was the first conducted statewide opinion poll of the 2016 election where a third-party candidate has placed first.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, General election, Political landscape in Utah
Had McMullin won Utah, he would have become the first nationally nonpartisan candidate since George Washington to win a state in 224 years since Washington's reelection in 1792, and ultimately the first nonpartisan candidate to win a state west of the Mississippi River.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, General election, Polling
Donald Trump won almost every poll, except for one poll showing him tied with Hillary Clinton and Evan McMullin, and another showing McMullin with 31% of the vote, ahead of Trump's 27% and Clinton's 24%. The polling was close due to the large percentage of people polled who were voting for McMullin. The final RCP average showed Trump with 37% to Clinton's 27%, Evan McMullin's 25% and Gary Johnson with 3.5%.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, General election, Candidates not on the ballot
The following were certified by the state as "write-in candidates", which means that votes given to these persons would be counted:


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, Analysis
Utah gave the Republican nominee a 45 percent plurality and thus awarded him six electoral votes. This was the lowest percent of the vote Trump received in a state he won in 2016. Trump received a much lower percentage of the vote in Utah than did Mitt Romney in 2012. In particular, Trump underperformed Romney by over 30 percentage points in the Provo-Orem, Logan, and Ogden metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, Clinton improved on Obama's performance in all of these areas. Trump received only 45 percent of the vote among Utah members of the LDS Church, barely half the proportion that Romney won in 2012. This was also much lower than the 61 percent of the LDS Church's vote Trump received nationally.


2016 United States presidential election in Utah, Analysis
Evan McMullin's 21.3 percent of the vote is the strongest third-party performance in any state since Ross Perot during the 1992 presidential election. He finished second ahead of Clinton in fifteen of Utah's twenty-nine counties, becoming the first third-party candidate since Perot to outpoll a major party candidate in any county nationwide, and only the fifth since 1928 to do so in any non-Southern county. In Utah County, he received almost thirty percent of the vote, about twice as much as Clinton and more than any non-Republican presidential candidate since 1968.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont
The 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont was held on November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 United States presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. Vermont voters chose three electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote pitting the Republican Party's nominee, businessman Donald Trump, and running mate Indiana Governor Mike Pence against Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders received unsolicited write-in votes.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont
Hillary Clinton won Vermont with 55.7% of the vote, a vote margin of 25.9% compared with the President Barack Obama's 35.6% vote margin in 2012. Donald Trump received 29.8% of the vote and won Essex County—the most rural and sparsely populated county in the state—thus making him the first Republican presidential candidate to win a county in Vermont since George W. Bush in 2004.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders received 5.7% of the vote through write-ins, the highest write-in draft campaign percentage for a statewide presidential candidate in history. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, received 3.1%, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein received 2.1%.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont, Primary elections
On March 1, 2016, in the presidential primaries, Vermont voters expressed their preferences for the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties. Voters who were unaffiliated chose any 1 primary in which to vote.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont, Primary elections, Democratic primary
The 2016 Vermont Democratic primary took place on March 1 as one of the Democratic Party's primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont, Primary elections, Democratic primary
On the same day, dubbed "Super Tuesday," Democratic primaries were held in 10 other states plus American Samoa, while the Republican Party held primaries in 11 states including their own Vermont primary.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont, Primary elections, Democratic primary
As Sanders was an extremely popular favorite son, there was no campaign to speak of and all pledged delegates were given to Sanders, due to Clinton getting less than 15% of the popular vote. Sanders won every municipality in the state.


2016 United States presidential election in Vermont, General election, Polling
Hillary Clinton won every poll pre-election by double digits. Interestingly, she only reached 50% in the last poll, leading 50% to 22%, which may indicate support for writing in Bernie Sanders or other third party candidates. The average of the final three polls showed Hillary Clinton leading Trump 48% to 22%.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia
The 2016 United States presidential election in Virginia was held on November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 general election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. Virginia voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote pitting the Republican Party's nominee, businessman Donald Trump, and running mate Indiana Governor Mike Pence against Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia
The Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton of New York, carried Virginia with a 49.73% plurality in the popular vote against businessman Donald Trump of New York, who carried 44.41%, a victory margin of 5.32%. Clinton seemed to benefit from having former Virginia governor Tim Kaine on the ticket. Whereas the national popular vote swung 1.77% Republican from the previous election, Virginia swung 1.44% Democratic. (Due to a higher third-party vote, Clinton's percentage was lower than Obama's in both 2008 and 2012, however.) Kaine himself became optimistic on election night after it became clear that he and Clinton would win Virginia by a larger margin than Obama did in 2012. His optimism soon faded, however, as it was announced that Clinton had lost many other important swing states to Trump.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia
Trump became the first Republican candidate since Calvin Coolidge in 1924 to win the White House without carrying Virginia. The Old Dominion had been a traditionally Democratic-leaning state from the party's founding until 1952. Although Virginia was later considered a reliable Republican-leaning state from 1952 until 2008, it has not voted Republican in a presidential election since 2004. This is due largely to migration into counties in Northern Virginia close to Washington, D.C., which has tilted those densely populated areas towards the Democratic Party once more.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia
Virginia was the only one of the eleven states that composed the Confederate States of America to vote Democratic in this election. This is a reversal from 1976, when it was the only state that had been part of the Confederacy to vote Republican. Virginia was also the only state Hillary Clinton won which was never carried by her husband Bill Clinton in either of his runs for president in 1992 and 1996. Virginia was one of eleven states to vote more Democratic than in 2012; other examples include Arizona, Texas, and Georgia.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia
Trump became the first Republican to win the White House without carrying Loudoun County since Herbert Hoover in 1928, and the first to do so without carrying Henrico County since Coolidge in 1924. This is also the last time Chesterfield County, Virginia Beach, and Chesapeake have voted for the Republican candidate in a statewide election. As of 2021, this is the last time Virginia was won by a single digit margin in a presidential election.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, Democratic primary
The 108 delegates (95 pledged delegates and 13 super delegates) from Virginia to the Democratic National Convention were allocated in this way. Among the pledged delegates, 62 of them were allocated based on the popular vote in each congressional district. The 33 at-large delegates were then allocated based on the statewide popular vote.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, Republican primary
The 49 delegates from Virginia to the Republican National Convention were allocated proportionally based on the popular vote.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, Libertarian nomination
The 2016 Libertarian Party presidential ticket was former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson for president and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld for vice president. They earned those nominations at the Libertarian Party 2016 National Convention on Memorial Day weekend.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, Green primary
The Virginia Green Party held its primary from March 20 through April 3. Party members were able to vote online through an email ballot or through the mail. On April 13, it was announced that Jill Stein had won with 76% of the vote. The state's four delegates were apportioned at the May 28 state meeting.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, Polling
In polling, Hillary Clinton won or tied in every pre-election poll but one. An average of the last three polls showed Clinton ahead of Trump 48% to 43%, which was accurate compared to the results.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, State voting history
Virginia joined the Union in June 1788 and has participated in all elections from 1789 onwards, except 1864 and 1868 (due to its secession from the US due to the American Civil War). Since 1900, Virginia voted Democratic 54.17% of the time and Republican 45.83% of the time. From 1968 to 2004, Virginia voted for the Republican Party candidate. Then, in the 2008 and 2012 elections, the state voted for the Democratic Party. The same trend continued in the 2016 presidential elections.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, State voting history
Clinton had several advantages in Virginia. The first was due in part to her landslide win in the Democratic primary against Senator Bernie Sanders. The second was Virginia has a significant number of African American voters, many of whom backed Clinton in the primary and both of President Barack Obama's wins in the state. The third was the state's growing share of well-educated suburban voters, especially in the suburbs surrounding Washington, D.C., who were moving away from the Republican Party in response to Trump being nominated for president. The fourth was Clinton's pick of the state's own US Senator, Tim Kaine, as her vice presidential running mate.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, State voting history
While polls throughout the campaign showed Clinton leading Republican Donald Trump by varying margins in Virginia, it was announced on October 13 that the Trump campaign was pulling its resources out of the state, likely ceding to Clinton what was perceived to be a critical battleground state. According to the Trump campaign, the reason for pulling out of Virginia was to compete in more critical battleground states like Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, all of which were states he won.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, General election, Predictions
The following are final 2016 predictions from various organizations for Virginia as of election day.


2016 United States presidential election in Virginia, General election, By congressional district
The 10th district was a "split district" as whilst it voted for Clinton in the presidential race, it also voted to re-elect a Republican member of congress.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state)
The 2016 United States presidential election in Washington took place on November 8, 2016 as part of the 2016 United States presidential election. Washington was won by Hillary Clinton, who won the state with 52.54% of the vote over Donald Trump's 36.83%, a margin of 15.71%. All of the state's 12 electoral votes were assigned to Clinton, though four defected. Trump prevailed in the presidential election nationally.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state)
In the presidential primaries, Washington voters chose Republican Party's nominee; the Democratic Party used the caucus system, and Green Party nominee was chosen in a convention.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), Background
Washington has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1988. While the state's Senate was majority Republican in 2016, both of Washington's United States Senators are Democrats, as well as a majority of the state's U.S. House delegation. Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 17.08% in 2008 and Mitt Romney by 14.87% in 2012.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), Primary elections, Democratic caucus
Bernie Sanders bested Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential caucus on March 26, 2016:


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), Primary elections, Democratic caucus
The state also held a non-binding presidential primary on May 24, the same date as the state's Republican primary. Hillary Clinton won the preference vote.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), Primary elections, Republican primary
Four candidates appeared on the Republican presidential primary ballot on May 24, 2016:


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), Primary elections, Green convention
This state's Green Party state convention was on May 15. Ballots were emailed to members within a week after the convention.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), General election, Polling
Democrat Hillary Clinton won every pre-election poll and all but one by double digits. The average of the final three polls showed Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 50.3% to 36%.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), General election, State voting history
Washington joined the Union in November 1889 and has participated in all elections from 1892 onwards.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), General election, State voting history
Since 1900, Washington voted Democratic 51.72 percent of the time and Republican 44.83 percent of the time. Since 1988, Washington had voted for the Democratic Party in each presidential election, and the same was expected to happen in 2016.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), General election, Results, Analysis
Hillary Clinton won the election in Washington with 52.5 percent of the vote, a slightly reduced percentage from President Obama in 2012, though due to Trump receiving a significantly smaller percentage than Mitt Romney, Washington was among 11 states where Clinton improved on Obama's margin of victory. This was the first presidential election in which the Republican Party won Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties since 1928 and 1952 respectively. It was also the first time the GOP had won Cowlitz County since Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the first Republican win in Mason County since Reagan in 1984.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), General election, Results, Analysis
Despite Clinton's victory, four Democratic electors defected. Three voted for Colin Powell, making him the first African-American Republican to receive electoral votes, while a Native American activist cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, making her the first Native American to receive an electoral vote for president.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), General election, Results, Analysis
Powell became the first Republican to receive electoral votes from Washington state since Ronald Reagan in 1984. However, overall it was the eighth consecutive election in which Washington voted Democratic, and the twelfth in a row in which it voted the same way as neighboring Oregon.


2016 United States presidential election in Washington (state), General election, By congressional district
Clinton won 7 of 10 congressional districts including one represented by a Republican.


2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia
The 2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia was held on November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 General Election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. West Virginia voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote pitting the Republican Party's nominee, businessman Donald Trump, and running mate Indiana Governor Mike Pence against Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.


2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia
On May 10, 2016, in the presidential primaries, West Virginia  voters expressed their preferences for the Democratic, Republican, Green, and Libertarian parties' respective nominees for president. Registered members of each party only voted in their party's primary, while voters who were unaffiliated chose any one primary in which to vote.


2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia
Donald Trump won West Virginia with 68.5% of the vote, his largest share of the vote in any state. Hillary Clinton received just over a quarter of the vote, with 26.4%. Trump's performance in the state made it his strongest state in the 2016 election by total vote share.


2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia
West Virginia was also one of two states where Donald Trump won every county, the other being Oklahoma. This was the second consecutive presidential election where every county within the state voted Republican. Trump's 42.2% margin of victory is the largest of any presidential candidate from either party in the state's history, besting Abraham Lincoln's 36.4% margin of victory in 1864. Hillary Clinton's performance was the worst by a major party nominee since 1912, when three candidates split the vote and received over 20% of the vote each, and, as of the 2020 election, remains the worst performance ever by a Democrat in West Virginia.


2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia, Analysis
As expected, Republican nominee Donald Trump won West Virginia in a 42-point rout (the largest of any presidential candidate in the state's history) over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, thanks to ardent support from coal industry workers in Appalachia. He thus captured all five electoral votes from the Mountain State. Trump had promised to bring back mining jobs in economically depressed areas of coal country, whereas his opponent had proposed investing millions into converting the region to a producer of green energy.


2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia, Analysis
Democrats' championing of environmentalism is viewed as a threat in coal country, and Clinton faced a towering rejection from Mountain State voters. Clinton was also seen as being "haunted" by a comment she made within the state itself, in which in describing the transition to clean energy she stated "We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."


2016 United States presidential election in West Virginia, Analysis
West Virginia was once a solidly Democratic state; it voted Democratic in every election from 1932 to 1996, except for the Republican landslides of 1956, 1972, and 1984. However, in recent years it has drifted to becoming solidly Republican, and has stayed that way since it was won by George W. Bush in 2000. Barack Obama, for example, failed to win even a single county in 2012. West Virginia is one of the two states where Hillary Clinton did not win any counties, the other being Oklahoma, which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin
The 2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin was held on November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 United States presidential election. Wisconsin voters chose 10 electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote pitting Republican Party nominee Donald Trump against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin
On April 5, 2016, in the presidential primaries, Wisconsin voters expressed their preferences for the Democratic and Republican Parties' respective nominees for president in an open primary; voters were allowed to vote in either party's primary regardless of their own party affiliation. Bernie Sanders prevailed in Wisconsin's Democratic primary, while Ted Cruz won Wisconsin's Republican primary.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin
In the general election, Donald Trump unexpectedly won Wisconsin by a narrow margin of 0.77%, with 47.22% of the total votes over the 46.45% of Hillary Clinton. Wisconsin was the tipping-point state of the 2016 election; that is, the closest state that both candidates needed to win in order to emerge with a victory in the election (for example, Michigan, while closer, was not necessary for a Trump victory).


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin
Trump's victory in Wisconsin was attributed to underestimated support from white working-class voters, a demographic group that had previously tended to vote for the Democratic candidate. By winning Wisconsin, Trump became the first Republican candidate to win the state since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Following a statewide recount requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein's campaign, Trump was certified to have won Wisconsin by a narrow margin of 1,405,284 votes to Clinton's 1,382,536.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin
Wisconsin was also one of eleven states to have voted twice for Bill Clinton in the 1990s which Hillary Clinton lost.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Background
The incumbent President of the United States, Barack Obama, a Democrat, was first elected president in the 2008 election, running with then Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Defeating the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, with 52.9% of the popular vote and 68% of the electoral vote, Obama succeeded two-term Republican President George W. Bush. Obama and Biden were reelected in the 2012 presidential election, defeating former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 51.1% of the popular vote and 61.7% of electoral votes.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Background
Although Barack Obama's approval rating in the RealClearPolitics poll tracking average remained between 40 and 50 percent for most of his second term, it has experienced a surge in early 2016 and reached its highest point since 2012 during June of that year. Analyst Nate Cohn has noted that a strong approval rating for President Obama would equate to a strong performance for the Democratic candidate, and vice versa.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Background
Following his second term, President Obama was not eligible for another reelection. In October 2015, Obama's running-mate and two-term Vice President Biden decided not to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination either. With Obama and Biden's terms expiring on January 20, 2017, the electorate was asked to elect a new president, the 45th president and 48th vice president of the United States, respectively.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Democratic nomination process, Democratic presidential debate in Milwaukee, February 2016
The Democratic Party held its sixth presidential debate on February 11, 2016, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. The debate was hosted by PBS NewsHour anchors Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff; it aired on PBS and was simulcast by CNN. Participants were Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Green Party presidential preference convention
The Wisconsin Green Party held its presidential preference vote at its annual state convention in Madison, Wisconsin, on April 16.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Republican nomination process, Presidential debate in Milwaukee, November 2015
The Republican Party held its fourth presidential debate on November 10, 2015, in Milwaukee, at the Milwaukee Theatre. Moderated by Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo  and Gerard Baker, the debate aired on the Fox Business Network and was sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. Eight candidates including Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, and Rand Paul, participated in the primetime debate that was mostly focused on jobs, taxes, and the general health of the U.S. economy, as well as on domestic and international policy issues. The accompanying undercard debate featured Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal who ended his campaign a week after the debate.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Forecast, State voting history
Wisconsin joined the Union in May 1848 and has participated in all elections from 1848 onwards.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Forecast, State voting history
Since 1900, Wisconsin has been won by the Democrats and Republicans the same number of times. Republican-turned-Progressive Robert M. La Follette Sr. carried the state in the 1924 presidential election.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Forecast, State voting history
The state voted for the Democratic nominee in the seven elections from 1988 to 2012, although sometimes by small margins, as it was in 1992, 2000, and 2004. There were other occasions, in contrast, when the margin of victory was substantial, such as 1996, 2008, and 2012.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Forecast, Polling
Polls consistently showed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton leading by a margin of two to eight points in a four-way race. The last poll published prior to the election was by SurveyMonkey and had Hillary Clinton with a two-point lead over Donald Trump. Clinton never visited the state during the general election campaign, while Trump visited six times. On election day, Trump ended up carrying the state by less than a point, a difference of an average of 5 to 6 points from most pre-election polling.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Forecast, Polling
Prior to the election, many major news networks and professional and election analysts predicted the state as either lean or likely Democratic. Wisconsin's unexpected swing to Trump, along with two other Rust Belt states (Pennsylvania, Michigan), was the deciding factor in his win of 306–232 over Clinton, despite her gaining the majority of votes. Clinton referenced the loss in her memoir What Happened: "If there's one place where we were caught by surprise, it was Wisconsin. Polls showed us comfortably ahead, right up until the end. They also looked good for the Democrat running for Senate, Russ Feingold."


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Results breakdown, By congressional districts
Official district results after recount from the Wisconsin Elections Commission.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Recount
On November 25, 2016, with 90 minutes remaining on the deadline to petition for a recount to the state's electoral body, Jill Stein, 2016 presidential candidate of the Green Party of the United States, filed for a recount of the election results in Wisconsin. She signaled she intended to file for similar recounts in the subsequent days in the states of Michigan and Pennsylvania. On November 26, the Clinton campaign announced that they were joining the  recount effort in Wisconsin.


2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin, Recount
The final result of the recount confirmed Trump's victory in Wisconsin, where he gained a net 131 votes. Trump gained 837 additional votes, while Clinton gained 706 additional votes. During the recount Trump had filed a lawsuit to halt the process, but a federal judge had rejected the lawsuit.


2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming
The 2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming was held on November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 United States presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. Wyoming voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote pitting the Republican Party's nominee, businessman Donald Trump, and running mate Indiana Governor Mike Pence against Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.


2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming
On March 1 and April 9, 2016, in the presidential primaries, Wyoming voters expressed their preferences for the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution parties' respective nominees for president. Registered members of each party only voted in their party's primary, while voters who were unaffiliated chose any one primary in which to vote. Prior to the election, Wyoming was considered to be a state Trump would win or a safe red state.


2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming
Donald Trump won the election in Wyoming with 67.4% of the vote. Hillary Clinton received 21.6% of the vote. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party received 5.1%. Wyoming, a solidly Republican state, has not voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since it went for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Trump carried every county with the exception of Teton County. His 45.8-point margin over Clinton in the state not only made it the most Republican in the 2016 presidential election, but it is also the largest margin of victory by any presidential candidate in the state's history, besting Ronald Reagan's 42.3-point margin in 1984.


2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming, Background, National situation
The incumbent President of the United States, Barack Obama, a Democrat and former U.S. Senator of Illinois, was first elected president in the 2008 election, running with former Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Defeating the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, with 52.9% of the popular vote and 68% of the electoral vote, Obama succeeded two-term Republican President George W. Bush, the former Governor of Texas. Obama and Biden were reelected in the 2012 presidential election, defeating former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 51.1% of the popular vote and 61.7% of electoral votes. Since the end of 2009, polling companies such as Gallup have found Obama's approval ratings to be between 40 and 50 percent.


2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming, Background, National situation
Following his second term, Barack Obama was not eligible for another reelection. In October 2015, Obama's running-mate and two-term Vice President Joe Biden decided not to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination either. With their term expiring on January 20, 2017, the electorate was asked to elect a new president, the 45th president and 48th vice president of the United States, respectively.


2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming, Background, Political landscape in Wyoming
Wyoming is the least populous of all 50 U.S. states. With almost 60% of the population identifying with or leaning towards the Republican Party, compared to less than 30% identifying with or leaning towards the Democrats, it is also the most solid Republican state, ahead of Idaho and Utah. In the 2012 presidential election, incumbent President Barack Obama received less than 28% of the votes, trailing Mitt Romney by more than 40 points.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia
The 2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, as part of the 2016 United States presidential election in which all fifty states and the District of Columbia participated. District of Columbia voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote, pitting the Republican Party's nominee, businessman Donald Trump, and running mate Indiana Governor Mike Pence against Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her running mate Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. The District of Columbia has three electoral votes in the Electoral College. Prior to the election, Clinton was considered to be virtually certain to win Washington DC.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia
Clinton won the election with 282,830 votes, or 90.9%, thereby becoming the first presidential candidate to win over 95% of the district's two-party vote. Trump received 12,723 votes, or 4.1%, which is both the lowest popular vote total and the lowest share of the vote received by any Republican candidate since voters in the District were granted presidential electors under the Twenty-third Amendment. Notably, Clinton's 86.77-point margin of victory also represented the largest secured by any major-party presidential candidate, in any jurisdiction, since Franklin D. Roosevelt's landslide re-election in 1936.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has voted for the Democratic ticket, and by a larger margin than any other jurisdiction, at every election since its voters were allowed to participate in 1964.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Background
The incumbent President of the United States, Barack Obama, a Democrat and former U.S. Senator from Illinois, was first elected president in the 2008 election, running with former Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Defeating the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, with 52.9% of the popular vote and 68% of the electoral vote, Obama succeeded two-term Republican President George W. Bush, the former Governor of Texas. Obama and Biden were reelected in the 2012 presidential election, defeating former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 51.1% of the popular vote and 61.7% of electoral votes.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Background
Although Barack Obama's approval rating in the RealClearPolitics poll tracking average remained between 40 and 50 percent for most of his second term, it experienced a surge in early 2016 and reached its highest point since 2012 during June of that year. Analyst Nate Cohn noted that a strong approval rating for President Obama would equate to a strong performance for the Democratic candidate, and vice versa.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Background
Following his second term, President Obama was not eligible for another reelection. In October 2015, his running-mate and two-term Vice President Biden decided not to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination either. With their term expiring on January 20, 2017, the electorate was asked to elect a new president, the 45th president and 48th vice president of the United States, respectively.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Background, Political landscape in the District of Columbia
The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1961, grants the District of Columbia the right to choose presidential electors equal to the number from the least populous state (currently Wyoming's three). Since the amendment's ratification, the District of Columbia has cast its electoral votes for the Democratic candidate in every election. A Republican has never been the District's Mayor, and the current Council has 10 Democrats and two Independents.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Primary elections, Republican convention
Due to the small geographical size of the District of Columbia and the very small number of Republicans in the District, the local Republican party decided go directly to a "state convention", which took place at the Loews Madison Hotel at 1177 15th St NW from 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. The Convention/Caucus method was chosen because the June 14th primary was deemed too late, and DC would be penalized and only get 16 delegates.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Primary elections, Democratic primary
The Democratic primary was held June 14. The date was chosen because it was thought that by then the race would be over and the voters could then concentrate on local races.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Primary elections, Results by ward, Ballot controversy
On March 30, ten weeks ahead of the Washington D.C. primary, NBC affiliate News 4 reported that the Democratic Party's D.C. State Committee had submitted registration paperwork for listing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on the primary ballots a day late, even though the Sanders campaign had correctly and timely registered with the state party. After a voter filed a challenge, this would possibly lead to Sanders' name being missing on the ballots.


2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, Primary elections, Results by ward, Ballot controversy
As the D.C. Council announced it would hold an emergency vote to put Sanders back on the ballots, and with Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta asking to make sure an administrative error wouldn't exclude a candidate, D.C. Democratic Party chairwoman Anita Bonds told CNN that "Bernie will be on the ballot." She further explained that the party has always notified the D.C. board of elections a day after the deadline, with the only difference being that this time, someone challenged the inclusion of Sanders.


2016 United States presidential election in the Northern Mariana Islands
The Northern Mariana Islands did not participate in the November 8, 2016 general election for President of the United States, because it is a territory and not a state. However, the five non-incorporated territories that send delegates to the House of Representatives participated in the presidential primaries of both major parties.


2016 United States presidential election in the Northern Mariana Islands
In the presidential primaries, voters expressed their preferences for the Democratic and Republican parties' respective nominees for president. Registered members of each party only voted in their party's primary, while voters who were unaffiliated chose any one primary in which to vote. The caucuses for both parties were held in March 2016.


2016 United States presidential election in the Northern Mariana Islands, Caucuses, Republican caucus
Prior to the Republican caucus, Ralph Torres, the Governor of Northern Mariana Islands, endorsed Donald Trump. The Republican caucus took place on March 15, 2016:


2016 United States presidential election in the Northern Mariana Islands, Caucuses, Democratic caucus
On January 11, 2016, Northern Mariana Islander delegate Gregorio Sablan endorsed Hillary Clinton. The Democratic caucus took place on March 12, 2016.


2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands
The U.S. Virgin Islands did not participate in the November 8, 2016 general election because it is a territory and not a state. However, the five non-incorporated territories that send Delegates to the House of Representatives did participate in the presidential primaries.


2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands
In presidential caucuses, Virgin Islands voters expressed their preferences for the Democratic and Republican parties' respective nominees for president. Registered members of each party only voted in their party's primary, while voters who were unaffiliated chose any one primary in which to vote.


2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Caucuses, Republican caucuses
Six of Virgin Islands' nine Republican delegates were elected during a presidential caucus. Territorial Caucuses met from noon to 6 p.m. Atlantic Standard Time on St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John as a Convention to vote for Presidential Preference and select at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention.


2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Caucuses, Republican caucuses
Three party leaders -- the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Virgin Islands's Republican Party -- attended the convention by virtue of their position. On election day all six delegates were voted to be uncommitted to the national convention in Ohio. This means that they will decide who to support at the convention. All 6 delegates were disqualified by the territorial party and were replaced. Rubio received 2 delegates, 2 delegates were uncommitted, Ted Cruz received 1, and Donald Trump received 1. This decision is being contested.


2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Caucuses, Democratic caucuses
Seven of Virgin Islands' 12 Democratic delegates are pledged to presidential contenders based on the results of the voting in the Virgin Islands Territorial Convention. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be pledged National Convention delegates.


2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Caucuses, Democratic caucuses
The At-Large delegates are to be pledged proportionally to presidential contenders based on the Caucus results on each of the three islands: four from St Thomas and St. John jointly, and three from St. Croix.


2016 United States presidential election recounts
Following Republican nominee Donald Trump's presumed electoral college victory in the United States presidential election of 2016, a group of computer scientists, cyber security experts, and election monitors raised concerns about the integrity of the election results. They urged the campaign staff of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who had conceded the campaign on November 9, to petition for a recount in three key states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.


2016 United States presidential election recounts
When the Clinton campaign declined to file for recounts, Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein agreed to spearhead the recount effort on November 23, on the grounds that unspecified "anomalies" may have affected the election's outcome. The Clinton team subsequently pledged to support the recount efforts "in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides." President-elect Trump and his supporters filed legal motions in all three states to prevent the recounts.


2016 United States presidential election recounts
Two other states were the subject of recount bids that were separate from Stein's efforts in the Rust Belt states: American Delta Party/Reform Party presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente filed for a partial recount in Nevada on November 30, and three Florida citizens filed for a complete hand recount in their state on December 6.


2016 United States presidential election recounts
In accordance with the Electoral Count Act, all states must certify and submit their final election results to the electoral college six days before the college meets. Under this "safe harbor" provision, any recount efforts for the 2016 election had to be completed before the deadline of December 13, 2016. The recount in Nevada went forward and were completed on schedule, resulting in only minor changes to vote tallies. Wisconsin permitted individual counties to decide whether to provide paper ballots for recount or merely to rerun the same computer totals.


2016 United States presidential election recounts
A recount in Michigan was allowed to proceed for three days before being halted by court order, and a federal lawsuit to compel a recount in Pennsylvania was dismissed. While the partial Michigan recount did unearth some instances of improper ballot handling and possible voter fraud, no indications of widespread hacking were discovered, and the overall outcome of the election remained unchanged, despite the evidence that the voting machines were old and faulty, possibly counting as "blank" ballots many that contained visually clear indications of presidential choice.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background
After the election, a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers including J. Alex Halderman, (director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society) and John Bonifaz, (founder of the National Voting Rights Institute) began studying the election results and found statistical anomalies.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background
For example, Clinton's votes were 7% lower than expected in counties that used electronic voting machines to tally votes, as opposed to using paper ballots and optical scan voting systems; in Wisconsin, there was a significant increase in the number of absentee ballots and Trump did far better than expected in counties that used only electronic voting; and there was a sizable increase in the number of ballots cast in Michigan that left the presidential field blank.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background
The 2016 presidential election was also unprecedented in that, as The Guardian reports:


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background
The loose coalition of computer scientists and lawyers advocated for an election recount in three battleground states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) where President-elect Trump had narrow victories of less than 1%. Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes (0.2%), Pennsylvania by 49,543 (0.8%), and Wisconsin by 27,257 votes (0.7%). A shift of half of these from Trump to Clinton would mean Clinton would get enough electoral votes to win, and a shift in these states would constitute the smallest shift which would have this effect. In order to petition these states, a presidential candidate would need to file the recount request. Stein agreed to lead the effort after the group was unable to persuade the Clinton team to file.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background
While most experts agree that voter fraud and cyberattacks are possible, they disagree about the extent to which these could have impacted the results of the 2016 presidential election. Statistician Nate Silver performed a regression analysis which demonstrated that the alleged discrepancy between paper ballots and electronic voting machines "completely disappears once you control for race and education level".


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background
However, two Stanford University students named Rodolfo Cortes and Alex Geijsel, and a trio of statisticians who write for the website U.S. Economic Snapshot named Thomas Cooley, Ben Griffy and Peter Rupert also analyzed those claims and found that though demographics accounted for some of the vote total, there was still a significant correlation with voting machine use. On November 23, Halderman wrote,


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background, Funding campaign and expenses
A funding campaign to cover the legal costs of the various recounts began on November 23, with an initial goal of $2.2 million to cover filing fees in Wisconsin. Donors quickly reached and surpassed that goal, which was subsequently raised to $4.5 million to cover filing fees in Pennsylvania. That was met on November 25, and the goal was raised a second time to $7 million for Michigan's filing fees. The goal was raised a third time to $9.5 million on November 28 after Wisconsin increased its filing fees. The total funds raised by the Stein campaign for the recounts eventually reached $7.33 million, with nearly 161,300 individual donors contributing in all.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Background, Funding campaign and expenses
Following the conclusion of the recount efforts, the Stein campaign claimed that costs for the recounts totaled $7.43 million, exceeding the amount that was raised. A published breakdown of expenditures showed that $212,500 was spent on staff payroll; $364,000 on consultants; $353,618 on administrative expenses such as travel costs; $3,499,689 on the filing fees in Wisconsin; $16,000 on the filing fees in Pennsylvania; $973,250 on the filing fees in Michigan; $1,630,200 on associated legal expenses; $150,000 on ongoing litigation as of December 13; and a final $150,000 on compliance costs.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Wisconsin
On November 25, 90 minutes before the deadline, Stein filed a petition to the Wisconsin Elections Commission for a recount of the state's votes. A request for a recount was also made by Independent presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente. In Wisconsin, a recount would involve a manual examination of all three million ballots, with a completion deadline of December 13.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Wisconsin
On November 26, the Clinton campaign's general counsel Marc Elias stated that their campaign would join Stein's recount efforts in Wisconsin and possibly others "in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides." He also noted that, "Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves."


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Wisconsin
On November 28, the Wisconsin Elections Commission rejected Stein's request for a hand recount of all votes, and Stein sought to overturn the decision in court. On November 29, after Stein paid $3.5 million needed to initiate a recount, the Wisconsin Elections Commission ordered a recount in the state to begin on December 1.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Wisconsin
Several academics and specialists submitted testimony in support of Stein's lawsuit seeking a recount. Poorvi Vora of George Washington University stated that vote-scanning machinery could be infected with malware that changes the record of votes, and a manual count of paper ballots would be the only way to know if there had been vote manipulation. Professor Philip Stark from the University of California also claimed that Trump's winning margin in Wisconsin could easily be within the margin of error for optical voting systems. Despite this testimony, Dane County Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn refused to order a hand recount for the whole state, even though she encouraged them to recount by hand.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Wisconsin
On December 2, a Trump Super PAC filed a federal lawsuit to halt the recount in Wisconsin arguing that it fails the United States Supreme Court's test for Equal Protection in the Florida election recount process established in Bush v. Gore. U.S. District Judge James Peterson denied the emergency halt to the recount, allowing the process to continue at least until a December 9 court hearing. At that hearing, Judge Petersen declined to halt the recount, noting that the process was nearly complete and there was virtually no chance that it would change the results of the election. While the lawsuit was not dismissed, Petersen said he would decide whether to do so within the next few days.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Wisconsin
Wisconsin's recount was completed and its results certified early on December 12, well before the state-imposed 8:00pm deadline that same day. Clinton increased her vote total in the state by 713 votes, while Trump increased his by 844, widening his lead by 131 votes over the original November 8 count and reaffirming his victory there. Wisconsin Elections Commission Chairman Mark Thomsen stated that the recount had uncovered no evidence that any of the state's voting machines had been hacked or otherwise tampered with.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Pennsylvania
Stein announced on November 25 that she intended to file for similar recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania. She did so in Pennsylvania on November 28, seven days after the official deadline of November 21, by applying to a court and asking them to order a recount.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Pennsylvania
On December 2, Trump and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania asked a court to dismiss the recount. They argued Pennsylvania law does not permit a court-ordered recount, and a Green Party lawyer acknowledged that the lawsuit was without precedent in the state.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Pennsylvania
On December 3, Stein and the Green Party formally withdrew their lawsuit seeking a statewide recount in Pennsylvania, stating that they were unable to produce the required $1 million bond before the court-ordered deadline at 5:00pm on December 5, which would have followed a court hearing earlier that day on whether to proceed with the case. The next day, December 4, an attorney representing the Green Party declared the Party's intent to file a lawsuit in a federal court to force Pennsylvania to carry out a recount, asserting that such a step was necessary because the state court system was ill-equipped to handle the matter.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Pennsylvania
Green Party lawyers filed the federal lawsuit on December 5, asserting that Pennsylvania's legal barriers to a recount amounted to a violation of voters' constitutional rights and a recount should be compelled. U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond scheduled a hearing on the lawsuit for December 9. During the hearing, lawyers for Stein presented testimony alleging that although poor polling was likely to blame for any deviations between election results and polls, the possibility of hacking could not be ruled out.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Pennsylvania
A former Pennsylvania voting machine inspector testified on behalf of lawyers for the Republican Party that the situations put forward by Stein's experts were highly unlikely and lacked any supporting evidence. Judge Diamond himself expressed concerns that Pennsylvania's voters would be disenfranchised if the state's election results were not certified in time for the December 13 deadline due to a recount.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Pennsylvania
On December 12, Diamond rejected Stein and the Green Party's lawsuit, ending the recount effort in Pennsylvania and allowing the state to certify its original November 8 results.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
Stein filed for a manual recount in Michigan on November 30, paying the $973,250 fee required for filing. The recount policy in Michigan is to count every ballot manually. A manual count is required because the machines used to vote have no audit trail features. According to Stein a recount in Michigan should have been pursued because of a "sky-high number of blank votes" for the presidency, since there were 87,810 ballots that were counted as not voting for president. Despite the money raised by Stein, Ruth Johnson, the Michigan Secretary of State, said that the recounting process might require up to $4 million of Michigan taxpayers' money.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
On December 1, the Trump campaign challenged Michigan's recount arguing that the recount couldn't be finished on time and that Stein's petition wasn't properly notarized, delaying the planned recount which was to begin the next day. On December 2, with Michigan's Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2–2, along party lines, the recount in Michigan was to proceed on December 6, barring court action, which Bill Schuette the Michigan Attorney General has requested.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
Shortly after midnight on December 5, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith ordered the recount in Michigan to begin at 12:00pm that day, bypassing a normally required waiting period of two days that would have caused the recount to begin on December 7. The timing of the recount had been the subject of a court hearing the previous day, in which lawyers representing Stein pushed for an immediate recount and lawyers for the Republican Party argued circumventing the waiting period was unnecessary. Michigan election officials began the recount as ordered.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
On December 6, the Michigan Court of Appeals declared that Stein had no standing to seek a recount because she finished fourth in the election, garnering 1% of the vote, and therefore did not qualify as an "aggrieved" candidate under state law. The court ordered the state election board to reject Stein's recount petition. Attorney General Schuette stated the court's decision meant the ongoing recount "must stop", but an attorney representing Stein insisted the recount would continue.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
Judge Goldsmith, whose earlier ruling ordering the recount to begin had dealt with only the timing of the recount and not whether it should proceed, called a hearing for the morning of December 7 to address Schuette's request to set aside his ruling in light of the state court's decision. While Goldsmith deliberated after the hearing, the Michigan election board also met and decided to refrain from acting on the state court's ruling until Goldsmith had issued his new decision, and Stein appealed the state court's ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
Goldsmith agreed to order the stoppage of the recount later that day, noting that while Stein's efforts had highlighted the vulnerability of Michigan's voting system to tampering, no evidence of such tampering had been presented, despite the evidence of Michigan's voting machines breaking down and not counting possibly over 87,000 votes for president that were not blank.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
On December 9, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Jill Stein's appeal to restart the recount in a 3–2 ruling, permitting the original November 8 election results to be certified.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Michigan
Prior to the halt of the recount, 3,047 precincts across 22 of Michigan's 83 counties had completed their recounts, which resulted in a net gain of 102 votes for Hillary Clinton. Additionally, 59 percent of precincts in Detroit were ineligible for recount, as the number of ballots stored in containers in case of a recount did not match tallies given by voting machine printout reports.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Nevada
On November 30, American Delta Party/Reform Party presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente requested a recount in five counties in Nevada and paid the $14,000 fee required for the effort. These counties were Douglas, Mineral, Nye, and Clark, as well as the independent city of Carson City. De La Fuente called his recount request a counterbalance to the recount that Jill Stein sought in Wisconsin, and stated that while he did not expect to win Nevada, he was concerned about the integrity of the vote.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Nevada
De La Fuente was entitled under state law to select a sample of 5% of Nevada's precincts to be recounted, totaling 93 precincts, but he selected only 92. If the results from the sample revealed a discrepancy of 1% or more in favor of either De La Fuente or Hillary Clinton, who won the state on election day, a full statewide recount would have been launched. As De La Fuente won only 202 votes across the precincts he selected for the recount, a deviation of as little as 3 votes would have triggered a statewide recount, though Secretary of State of Nevada Barbara Cegavske would have had discretion to determine if a recount was warranted.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Nevada
The Nevada partial recount was completed on December 8. It resulted in no change in the number of votes cast for De La Fuente, but Clinton lost 9 votes and Trump lost 6 due to absentee ballot errors. The recount involved 93,840 ballots in total.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Florida
On December 6, three voters from central Florida, Leonisia Olivares, Jerry W. Lapidus, and Judith L. Craig, filed a lawsuit in Leon Circuit Court, calling for a hand recount of all Florida ballots to be conducted. The plaintiffs alleged that hacking, malfunctioning machines, and substantial voter fraud altered the results in the state of Florida in favor of Donald Trump, and asserted that Hillary Clinton would have won otherwise. They further insisted the recount be paid for by the defendants named in the lawsuit, who included Trump, Governor Rick Scott, and Florida's 29 presidential electors.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Florida
An attorney representing the plaintiffs noted that each of the defendants had to respond to the lawsuit before it could go forward, however, and there was no guarantee all of them would do so before the electoral college met on December 19. The lawsuit was called a "long-shot", and by December 12, the day before the deadline for states to certify their election results, the Florida courts had not yet taken up the case.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Filings, Florida
Leon Circuit Judge John Cooper eventually dismissed the suit, after which the plaintiffs appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal to overturn the dismissal, and requested that the electoral college's vote be postponed to allow the recount to be conducted. Judge Scott Makar struck down both motions, stating in his ruling that the lawsuit "is nothing more than a political question masquerading as a lawsuit and should be dispatched on that basis."


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Results
A November 26 statement from the Obama administration acknowledged Russian efforts to interfere in the election, but expressed confidence in the integrity of the electoral infrastructure, indicating that the results of the election "accurately reflect the will of the American people." On November 27, the White House released another statement saying, "the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Reactions
On November 26, Trump released a statement, speaking out against Stein's decision, calling the recount a "scam" whose real aim is to fill the Green Party's coffers, and saying that "the election is over". Stein responded by saying the donations for the recount are "all going into a dedicated and segregated account so that it can only be spent on the recount." Recount accounts are covered under the Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion 2006–24, which left the use of any remaining funds to be settled by the FEC at a later time.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Reactions
Trump also used Twitter to allege that "serious voter fraud" had occurred in California, New Hampshire, and Virginia, and claimed, without citing evidence, that "millions of people" voted illegally. On January 25, 2017, President Trump vowed to start a federal investigation into alleged voter fraud. In June 2019, Trump referenced a settlement that Judicial Watch had recently reached with California "where California admitted to a million votes...there was much illegal voting." The Judicial Watch settlement actually related to purging 1.5 million inactive individuals from voter registration rolls.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Reactions
According to Politico, many of Clinton's closest allies were "irritated with Jill Stein" and did not believe that the recount would change the election's results, though they did feel that they had an obligation to participate.


2016 United States presidential election recounts, Reactions
Stein's former running mate Ajamu Baraka opposed the recount efforts, writing in a Facebook post, "The recount effort has resulted in serious questions regarding the motivations of the recount that threatens to damage the standing and reputation of the Green Party, its supporters and activists". He also told CNN, "It would be seen as carrying the water for the Democrats". The Green Party's Maryland Senate candidate Margaret Flowers circulated an open letter, which has signatures from many prominent Green Party members, opposing the recount. The letter read, "While we support electoral reforms, including how the vote is counted, we do not support the current recount being undertaken by Jill Stein".


2016 United States presidential primaries in Puerto Rico
Although Puerto Rico did not participate in the November 8, 2016, general election because it is a territory and not a state, the five non-incorporated territories that send delegates to the United States House of Representatives participated in the presidential primaries.


2016 United States presidential primaries in Puerto Rico
In the presidential primaries, Puerto Rico voters expressed their preferences for the Democratic and Republican parties' respective nominees for president. Registered members of each party only voted in their party's primary, while voters who were unaffiliated chose any one primary in which to vote. There were 60 Democratic delegates and 23 Republican delegates to be allocated.


2016 United States presidential primaries in Puerto Rico, Primary elections, Republican primary
The Republican primary took place on March 6, 2016: Twelve candidates appeared on the Republican presidential primary ballot, with only four still possessing active campaigns:Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich


2016 United States presidential primaries in Puerto Rico, Primary elections, Republican primary
Sen. Marco Rubio carried the primary with 73.8% of the vote and was awarded all 23 delegates due to the territory's 50% winner-take-all threshold.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction
The 2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, officially known as Auction 1001, allocated approximately 100 MHz of the United States Ultra High Frequency (UHF) spectrum formerly allocated to UHF television in the 600 MHz band. The spectrum auction and subsequent reallocations were authorized by Title VI (The Spectrum Act) of the payroll tax cut extension passed by the United States Congress on February 17, 2012.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
The 2008 United States wireless spectrum auction, dealing with allocations for UHF television in the 700 MHz band, generated $19.6 billion from companies such as AT&T and Verizon Communications. This auction re-allocated the UHF space formerly occupied by channels 52–69, after the completion of the primary digital television transition in the United States from NTSC to ATSC in 2009. In effect, the digital transition had eliminated 25% of the space allocated for UHF television in the United States.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
Wireless broadband internet access interests had expressed desire for more broadcast spectrum for their use, and in March 2009, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry introduced a bill requiring a study of efficient use of the spectrum. The lobbying group CTIA pressed for 800 MHz of additional spectrum.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
David Donovan of The Association for Maximum Service Television, seeing that further cuts of broadcast television UHF frequencies was being eyed, stated that the 2 GHz S band, allocated for mobile satellite service, was not being used ten years after its allocation, and would be an appropriate allocation target rather than demanding even more space in UHF broadcast ranges.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the AMST commented to the FCC that the government should make maximum use of the newly available 700 MHz UHF spectrum and other spectrum already allocated for wireless before asking for more, while companies that would benefit asked the government to look everywhere possible. Many broadcasters objected to further encroachment on the UHF broadcast spectrum.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
A Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) study claimed that $62 billion worth of spectrum could become $1 trillion for wireless, and one proposal would require all TV stations, including LPTV, to give up all spectrum, with subsidized multichannel services replacing over-the-air TV, even after viewers spent a great deal of money on the DTV transition. Broadcasters responded, "In the broadcasting context, the 'total value' is not a strict financial measure, but rather is one that encompasses the broader public policy objectives such as universal service, local journalism and public safety."


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
Broadcasters pointed out that the government, viewers and the related industries spent $1.5 billion making sure that a minority of the audience would be ready for the DTV transition. Any change could mean the loss of free TV to people in rural areas, broadcasters said, particularly "local journalism, universal service, availability of educational programming, and timely and reliable provision of emergency information."


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican FCC commissioner, agreed that properly using the existing spectrum was important, and part of doing this was using the latest technology. The wireless industry needed more spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
FCC broadband advisor Blair Levin wanted a plan by February 2010 (later extended to March 2010). Another proposal was "geo-filtered WiMAX", which would allow HDTV but only in a particular market, with the remainder of the spectrum sold for $60 billion. WiMax would replace the existing services but would make MVPD services cheaper, while still allowing broadcasters to make more money. The additional spectrum made available could then be sold to pay the industry's debt.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
Bob Powers, vice president of government relations for the National Religious Broadcasters, pointed out that the Levin proposal did not provide for religious broadcasters.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Background
In 2009, venture capitalist Tom Wheeler called broadcaster opposition a "jihad", but he went on to say broadcast TV was "without a doubt ... the most efficient means of deliveringcommon content to a large audience." Wheeler was nominated for FCC chairman in 2013.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
Regarding the CEA study's findings, Donovan said to Broadcasting & Cable magazine:


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
Wireless companies are asking the government to participate in the biggest consumer bait-and-switch in American history. For the last few years, the government told consumers that digital television would bring them free over-the-air HDTV and more channels. Now, after purchasing billions of dollars in new digital equipment and antennas, wireless advocates are asking the government to renege on its promise. High-definition programming and more digital channels would become the sole and exclusive province of pay services. The American public simply will not stand for this.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
PBS and its stations also opposed the plan, saying they had spent a lot of money on the digital upgrade which they need to earn back, and viewers had contributed expecting the digital broadcasting to continue. They claimed PBS was "efficient and productive, and abundantly serves the public interest." Noncommercial broadcasters said they needed broadcast spectrum for superior educational and children's programming. PBS said 85 percent of its stations used HDTV and 82 percent had two or more standard channels. Ohio State University said it had "no excess" spectrum, though it later sold WPBO in Portsmouth, Ohio (a satellite of WOSU-TV in Columbus) as part of the incentive auction due to an "incredible duplication of PBS signals" in the area.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
An FCC workshop on November 23, 2009 produced several ideas. Virginia Tech professor Charles Bostian said sharing should be done, but not in the white spaces; WiFi spectrum should be used instead. Vint Cerf of Google said cable companies could share some spectrum, which the companies would like to do except they have "must-carry" rules that will not allow this. BBN Technologies chief engineer Chip Elliott called for government-funded broadband to be shared by researchers. Collaboration was the key to advancing the technology, and the word "collaboratories" referred to broadband as "not only the goal of the research, but the vehicle as well."


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
Wi-Fi testing using white spaces took place in Virginia in Fall 2009 and in Wilmington, North Carolina in 2010.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) opposed ending broadcast TV because the industry spent $15 billion, in addition to giving up spectrum already. On December 14, 2009 at a hearing before the Communications Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, NAB president Gordon H. Smith said the government and individuals had spent too much money on the DTV transition and for HDTV for further changes to make their efforts worthless, and that broadband and broadcasting could co-exist.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
He pointed out that in the 1970s, broadcasting used 60 percent of the spectrum that it does now to deliver a much higher quality product, and that existing regulations required more efficient use of the spectrum than would be the case for new devices. On the subject of what could be done instead, Smith recommended using white space in rural areas with fixed devices rather than mobile devices, and new types of broadband service such as those developed by Sezmi.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcaster resistance
CTIA president Steve Largent said that the industry needed spectrum, "wherever it comes from." He said government spectrum probably was not efficiently used and would "likely" be "repurposed", while other broadcast and satellite spectrum "may" be used better for wireless. Largent also said without more spectrum, companies might merge to better use what they had. Consultant Dave Hatfield, former FCC engineering and technology chief, said making maximum use of existing spectrum through compression and modulation would help, but it would not be enough. Oregon Republican House member Greg Walden criticized the FCC for hiring Distinguished Scholar in Residence Stuart Benjamin, whose essay recommending replacing broadcast spectrum entirely Walden called an "abomination".


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
On March 16, 2010, at the FCC's monthly meeting, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan was revealed, with a combination of mandatory and voluntary efforts expected to increase spectrum by 300 MHz; 120 MHz of that was expected to come from broadcasters, and 90 MHz from mobile satellite service. By 2015, broadcasters would have to leave channels 46 through 51, allowing another 36 MHz to be used for wireless Internet access by "repacking", or relocating channels now on those frequencies. A total of 120 MHz needed to be reclaimed from broadcasters, the rest voluntarily.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
The FCC Chairman's Senior Counselor Colin Crowell explained that the spectrum crunch wasn't an imminent crisis, but rather "it's a crisis in five or six years." Failure to act could make Internet access more expensive and leave the United States less able to compete with other countries, the FCC report said. House Communications Subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, said it would take four years from the time a bill passed to determine where the new spectrum would come from.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
The FCC had 50 MHz of spectrum available for wireless broadband, but this was expected to increase to between 500 MHz and 800 MHz over 10 years. 300 MHz would be made available by 2015. The National Association of Broadcasters opposed the plan, issuing this statement:


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
We are concerned by reports today that suggest many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised. Moreover, as the nation's only communications service that is free, local and ubiquitous, we would oppose any attempt to impose onerous new spectrum fees on broadcasters.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
Mark Wigfield, broadband spokesman for the FCC, pointed out that even in the unlikely event all broadcasters in a market gave up their spectrum, the FCC would have to guarantee that some over-the-air service remained.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
In April 2011, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said "realigning" would be necessary if broadcasters did not volunteer, while Intel's Peter Pitsch told Congress "the repacking process should not be made voluntary." The NAB's Smith worried that the process could cause numerous problems for broadcasters and viewers. The spectrum auctions were authorized by Title VI (The Spectrum Act) of the payroll tax cut extension passed by Congress on February 17, 2012.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
A reverse auction would let broadcasters determine how much they were willing to take for giving up spectrum, while the sale of licenses to broadband providers would take place through a forward auction, in which proceeds would have to cover payments to broadcasters, costs of the auction, and costs of relocation.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
On April 27, 2012, the FCC approved letting stations share spectrum using DTV subchannels, with all stations that had "full channels" keeping rights such as must-carry. At the first "reverse incentive auction" workshop on October 26, FCC Media Bureau chief Bill Lake said stations would not be able to decide their channel but could apply to change it.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
At a September 30, 2013 workshop, broadcasters and equipment makers were asked what the changes would cost. The result was that answers would only be possible after the FCC said who would be moving and how. The Spectrum Act provided $1.75 billion for the reasonable expenses of relocating stations, and the money would have to be paid in three years without further action by Congress.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
Among the expenses would be meeting new tower standards for dealing with wind and ice, interim facilities so some stations would not be temporarily forced off the air, and translators in areas that needed them, mostly in the West. The FCC asked for comments to be received by November 4, 2013, with spectrum auctions coming later. Providers of wireless services recommended that broadcasters give up two channels, or 15 MHz, of Broadcast auxiliary service, which is used for relaying breaking news, but the NAB said this spectrum could be shared with the United States Department of Defense.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
In March 2014, KLCS and KJLA conducted a channel sharing trial in partnership with CTIA and the Association of Public Television Stations, which tested the viability of broadcasting two sets of television services within the same 6 MHz channel band, including varying combinations of high and standard definition feeds. The experiment was deemed successful, although certain scenarios (particularly two HD feeds on both channels) were found to affect video quality on more complex content. Later in September 2014, KLCS announced that it would enter into a channel sharing arrangement with fellow public station KCET and participate in the 2015 auction.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
In March 2014, the FCC voted to ban joint sales agreements—arrangements in which a station brokers the sale of its advertising to another station in the market, by making them count the same as outright ownership if the senior partner sells 15% or more of the brokering station's advertising, and give two years for station owners to unwind joint sales agreements that are in violation of the new rules.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Plan announcement and preparations
It was speculated that the move to ban JSAs was an attempt to devalue television stations (particularly, the smaller outlets that were commonly operated under JSA's and similar agreements), and in turn, push their owners to participate in the incentive auction. FCC Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake denied that the push to ban JSAs was connected to the spectrum auction.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
The reverse and forward auctions to repack TV stations and free up spectrum for wireless communications would be implemented in several phases, with targets for how much spectrum would be reallocated, and a balance of payments needed to pay for the reverse auction plus transition costs with proceeds from the forward auction.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
On April 18, 2014, the FCC announced guidelines for the auction. All stations would keep their coverage area as of February 22, 2012, if possible. Channel 37 would become a "guard band" between broadcasting and wireless services. Each station would be given a deadline to make its upgrades, with all stations expected to complete the transition after 39 months. Wheeler later said if stations could not meet the deadline, they would not necessarily have to go off the air. The FCC approved the framework 3-2, with the NAB claiming the commission had not met its obligation to compensate broadcasters and guarantee service for viewers.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
In a July 2, 2015 filing, the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition (EOBC), representing over a hundred TV stations planning to participate in the incentive auction, said that population data was too important and could cause an $8.3 billion drop in opening prices without "relatively minor" changes. Because the incentive auction was a reverse auction, even these prices were the highest possible. On July 16, the FCC planned to make final the rules of the auction, including requiring stations to move to their new channels 39 months after the auction, and no reserved channel for noncommercial broadcasters. The procedures vote was moved to August 6 but the auction was set for March 29, 2016.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
After the vote, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said the plan "permits too many broadcasters to be placed in the wireless band", which would result in interference between TV stations and others using the band. Dennis Wharton, NAB executive vice president of communications, said that the vote minimized what stations would receive for giving up broadcasting, guaranteed numerous interference problems and gave "a handout of free spectrum with no public interest obligations to multibillion dollar companies" while hurting local television news and especially LPTV stations and translators. The LPTV Spectrum Coalition and CTIA objected to the vote, while the EOBC said no one would be happy but the compromise would be enough.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
The NAB filed petitions asking for the FCC not to penalize stations that did not participate in the auction, and asking that stations not be moved to the duplex gap.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
On October 15, the Applications Procedure Public Notice set the filing window as noon December 1 through 6 pm December 18 (this was later changed to December 8 through January 12). After that time, no more stations could join, but bids from those who did would not be final until March 29, 2016. The FCC released opening bid prices on October 16.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
These included three categories: stations giving up or sharing channels (which would mean the offering the full price), stations moving from UHF to high VHF (less than full price), and stations moving from high VHF to low VHF (lower than full price but not the lowest). Other factors were the number of people served and interference.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
The FCC designated the auction as Auction 1001, with the purpose being to make 144 MHz available for resale to wireless companies. If that target was met, broadcasters would have been repacked into channels up to 26. If the minimum target of 42 MHz was met, channels up to 44 would have been used. The "clearing target" might not be met, in which case a lower target would have been set, with the process continuing until a target was reached. In each market where vacant channels remain, the FCC intends for one of those channels to be used for unlicensed devices.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
The FCC announced the clearing target would be 126 MHz. This meant fewer channels for relocation of LPTV stations, which would not be protected after the auction. It was believed thousands of LPTV stations would have to be relocated. LPTV stations argued that because they were not allowed to participate in the process, they could lose spectrum. On May 5, Scott Caulkins of Caulkins & Bruce PC, representing one of the owners of LPTV stations, argued before the DC Circuit Court that the Spectrum Act and FCC authority gave LPTV stations "essentially the same [spectrum] rights" as full-power stations. He said they could only be considered secondary if they caused interference,  but that the result of repacking would be more interference. FCC attorney Jacob Lewis said LPTV stations would be secondary and that considering their rights would mean too many stations to relocate.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
Each bidder in the forward auction was required to bid on 95 percent of census blocks in which an interest was shown. As of August, Comcast, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and others had submitted bids for 100 MHz of spectrum in the forward auction totaling over $11 billion, with the goal $88.4 billion.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
Only $22.45 billion had been raised when the FCC ended stage one of the forward auction after two weeks. After the second stage of the reverse auction, the target for stage two of the forward auction was 114 MHz, with the desired goal $54.6 billion, enough for two channels per market. With less spectrum to be purchased, lower demand could mean lower costs for wireless providers. Failure of stage two could reduce the target further, to 108 MHz, or one channel per market.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
If stage three also fails, the target could even be 84 MHz, an additional four channels per market. The lower the target, the lower the amount paid to stations, but the fewer the number of public stations that could participate. And public stations that are not "repacked" must pay for their own equipment upgrades.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
Stage two of the forward auction ended October 19 with $21.5 billion in total bids, $33.1 billion less than expected. The reverse auction's third stage began November 1 with a 108 MHz target. The number of paired blocks per market started at 10, reduced to 9 in stage two, and 8 in stage three. Four impaired blocks, with interference in less than 15 percent of an area, protected Mexican channels below 37. Two markets had interference in 15 to 50 percent of an area.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
Stage three of the forward auction began December 5 after total bids for stage three were $40.3 billion for 108 MHz. Stage four of the reverse auction ended January 13, 2017 with $10.05 billion paid for 84 MHz, or seven licenses in each market. 70 MHz of that goes to the wireless companies, with 14 MHz for unlicensed use. With less spectrum cleared, fewer stations will move and none will be in the buffer or wireless bands.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
Bidding ended March 30, and on April 12, the FCC announced the completion of the incentive auction. The auction raised $19.8 billion and made more spectrum available for faster 5G service. Nearly $10.1 billion goes to 175 TV stations, $7.3 billion to the United States Treasury, and $1.8 billion to assist with the repacking process. Lawrence Chu, an advisor to the FCC during the bidding process, considered the auction a success while admitting that "there will be some people disappointed on the broadcaster side."


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Broadcast incentive auction
T-Mobile paid almost $8 billion for 1,525 licenses representing 45 percent of low-band spectrum, giving the company coverage of the entire country and about four times the spectrum it had, while Dish Network spent $6.2 billion on 486 licenses and Comcast received 73 licenses for its $1.7 billion bid. AT&T bid $910 million 23 licenses and U.S. Cellular bid $328.6 million on 188 licenses.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Repacking
The collective moves of UHF and VHF television stations to accommodate the elimination of the 600 MHz band came to be known as repacking. With the advent of virtual channels after the transition to digital television in 2009, it was possible for any given broadcast channel to change frequencies while still retaining their long-standing channel numbers for identification and branding purposes. The issue arose that if a television viewer's station changes its frequency, their television will not be aware of the shift (even if the virtual channel remains the same), unless they perform a rescan: forcing their television to scan all ATSC digital channels for signals.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Repacking
The estimated number of channels moving is still over 1,000. Although moving channels by region was considered, which would work better for the companies doing the work, channels would instead move according to which moves are related. 710 stations were part of "a sort of interference daisy-chain", meaning the stations had to work with each other, and that it was unlikely stations could meet the deadline or complete the process using the funds allocated.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Repacking
Some stations would be required to go off the air or have temporary facilities or temporary channel sharing (thought the FCC was reluctant to ask viewers to rescan twice, and the Cable Act did not allow "must carry" requirements for stations that used temporary facilities). So-called "bottleneck stations", if they did share, would allow the spectrum to be used by wireless services sooner without interrupting broadcast service. Weather delays and important rating events would also need to be considered. Companies doing the work might also have their own reasons for how they schedule work.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Repacking
The NAB filed comments October 28, 2016 asking that the 39-month deadline for moving be changed, or allow waivers. The repack would take place in ten phases, and Michael Dell's OTA Broadcasting asked the FCC to provide information on bottleneck stations so that they could be given incentives to give up licenses or move to temporary channels.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Repacking
The Transition Scheduling Plan from the Media Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task Force divided stations into ten phases. Each phase had a testing period. Until this time, stations could not use their new channel. After the completion period, stations could no longer use their old channel. Stations needing to move to new channels would have 90 days to file for construction permits. Stations giving up their licenses would have 90 days to leave their pre-auction channels after receiving auction proceeds. Stations entering channel-sharing agreements would have 6 months to finish the process after receiving auction proceeds. Priority would be given to clearing the 600 MHz for wireless use.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Repacking
With less spectrum cleared than expected, fewer stations were moving, and the $1.75 billion cost of relocating was expected to be enough. Also, a February 23, 2017 vote to approve voluntary adoption of ATSC 3.0 meant broadcasters could upgrade to the new standard and to 4K and interactive capability at the same time as repacking.


2016 United States wireless spectrum auction, Repacking
The FCC did not need for 400 of the 2,200 eligible stations to participate, and the total number who did may not be known for two years. Only 175 of the remaining 1,800 needed to be paid. Out of those, twelve did not indicate they would continue broadcasting. 133 stations planned to share, 29 were moving from UHF to VHF, and one was moving from high-VHF to low-VHF. The FCC released the list of new channel assignments, and the 39-month moving process was set to begin April 13, 2017. The first moves would take place by November 30, 2018. The final phase of moves had a scheduled completion of July 3, 2020.