Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College

NBC News ^ | July 6, 2020 | Pete Williams

[Jayster]

WASHINGTON — The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous decision in the "faithless elector" case was a defeat for advocates of changing the Electoral College, who hoped a win would force a shift in the method of electing presidents toward a nationwide popular vote. But it was a win for state election officials who feared that empowering rogue electors would cause chaos.

The November general election is not actually a direct vote for the presidential candidates. Voters instead choose a slate of electors appointed in their states by the political parties. Those electors meet in December to cast their ballots, which are counted during a joint session of Congress in January.

[Don Corleone]

That decision is basically a good one BUT the devil is in its details.. more judicial wordsmiths.

[The Pack Knight]

This is a pretty big deal—people have been wondering whether the constitution allows for faithless elector laws as long as I can remember. I think the Supreme Court is wrong here, but I’ll need to read the whole opinion. I am surprised it was unanimous.

[ClearCase_guy]

In other words, the Supreme Courts feels the we should follow the Constitution. At least today.

[Skywise]

No this is a BAD ruling.

If the electors MUST vote as the state laws decide then the state laws that say electors must vote for whom the popular vote went for is LEGAL and must be followed.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct,...”

Except that many states now have laws that their electors go to the candidate who wins the Country’s popular vote.

[nathanbedford]

Not having read the opinion, I can comment from sublime ignorance.

It seems to me the purpose of the electoral College is to interpose the will of that college between the mob and the office of the President of the United States. To declare that that discretion may be removed from electors, presumably elected because of their reputation for discretion, is to pervert the purpose of the electoral college which is to provide a check on democracy.

Similarly, a holding that says that a state may require a pledge of an Elector, now apparently justification for enforcing control over the Elector, is contrary to the purpose of the Framers.

Any reference in the opinion justifying itself because it furthers a democratic vote, written by extreme leftist Elena Kagan, betrays a contrary understanding from framers.

[treetopsandroofs]

“Supreme Court rules ‘faithless electors’ can’t go rogue at Electoral College”

Or WHAT?

All this does is encourage RINO plants to try to disrupt the election.

[taxcontrol]

I see this as a win for the Constitutionalists but not a “defeat” for the anti-EC / popular vote folks. Their fall back position will be the compact to have their electors vote in accordance with popular vote. I belive the compact or agreement is unconstitutional as any such compact requires approval of Congress.

Ultimately, I see that as a bad thing as it disenfranchises the vast majority of voters. In my opinion, the electors should be decided on a per congressional district basis. Whoever wins a majority in the district gets that districts electoral vote. If no clear majority, a run off election held 30 days later, that does not accept or count write in ballots and only has the top to vote receiving candidates from the first election. This should establish a clear majority winner for that district.

The two state electoral votes SHOULD be awarded with 1 electoral vote going to the candidate that won the most districts in the state and the second electoral vote going to the candidate that won the most votes in the state. Ties for state votes should be decided by a unicameral vote of the Legislature or by the Govenor, according to state law.

[Nateman]

Only George Washington had 100% of the electors. James Monroe would have also got 100% in 1820 but one of the electors changed his one vote so that only Washington continued to hold that honor. To this day Washington is the only 100% vote.

[CodeToad]

The problem with popular votes is that States are not required to hold a vote or report to other States their results.

[The Pack Knight]

I think there is some danger in it. Interestingly, Lawrence Lessig argued that the Constitution does not allow for faithless elector laws, but I think this opinion helps his project of circumventing the amendment process and abolishing the electoral college through the “national popular vote compact.” Faithless electors would essentially render the NPV compact unenforceable.

Of course, it makes me suspect that Lessig and other leftist NPV advocates were hoping that faithless electors would provide a failsafe in case the popular vote went the wrong way. After all, the electors from most of the states that enact the NPV laws vote Democrat, so the NPV laws would primarily operate to require Democrat electors to vote for a Republican candidate who won the national popular vote. If faithless elector laws were unconstitutional, then they could have their cake and eat it, too: preen that they are honoring the popular will by voting for the Democrat when the Democrat wins the popular vote, while finding an excuse to vote for the Democrat (”Russian interference,” “voter suppression,” “he’s a racist”) when the Republican wins the popular vote.

[bk1000]

“If the electors MUST vote as the state laws decide then the state laws that say electors must vote for whom the popular vote went for is LEGAL and must be followed.”

The popular vote in the individual states is legitimate. There is no national popular vote.

[The Pack Knight]

Not only that, but there is no national standard for voter eligibility in Presidential elections beyond the minimum standards of the Constitution. Do you think for a second California won’t enfranchise illegal immigrants to pump up their popular vote?

[Manly Warrior]

Popular vote of whom? The nation? No, they are electors of a states’ constituency, not the nation at large. That would go beyond faithless to well past feckless. Whole states would be w/o representation if this ever happened.

[CodeToad]

yep. Kali is desperately trying to ensure illegal aliens vote.

[gitmo]

Wow. I just read an article that said they ruled 180 degrees the opposite.

[NRx]

That is exactly correct, and it IS constitutional. Art II sec. 1 clause 2 gives state legislatures sole and absolute authority in determining how their state electors shall be apportioned. The SCOTUS got this one right.

[Leep]

I always get a little nervous whenever the Supreme’s actually advocate following the USC...it’s usually a set up for something unconstitutional to follow.

[Bonemaker]

“Except that many states now have laws that their electors go to the candidate who wins the Country’s popular vote.”

That’s the devil in the details. If this democrat ploy results in otherwise Trump winning states forced by state law to vote for Biden and throws the election, there will be a constitutional crisis.