Posted on 07/06/2020 8:39:06 AM PDT by Fawn
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway.
So-called faithless electors have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at wptv.com ...
Not surprised.
Short-sighted for any small state to sign on to this
I suppose I should break with the time-honored FR tradition and read the article, but does this ruling mean that the states can require the elector to vote for the state’s popular vote winner, or to vote for the national popular vote winner?
What happens if they DON’T is the question? Would a faithless elector go to jail to overturn an election?
“can” require....
California will say “If the feelings and moods of the individual elector match the voters’ decision on candidate winning.”
NY will say “Electors may vote for anyone the Dem Governor rules to be appropriate and is the better person.”
This is the state’s popular vote, not the national popular vote.
This prevents “faithless” electors, who would vote against the state’s popular vote, a tactic that the Dems tried to encourage in 2016.
so far this is local to the individual state.
can the state require them to IGNORE their local voters to comply with the national popular vote? I would think that violates the constitution.
(ie. if calafornia had 300 million voters then the other 49 states and territories would have to be mandated to vote with california)
Good. That’s been a concern for a while.
Last election, I tried to get information on the electors. Because there was a big choice. Outside of finding the party affiliation, there was very little information on the web.
Unless you’ve participated in party meetings and know these people. You’re pretty much voting blind for electors. I have no clue how trust worthy they are. Whether they’ve been in the party for 20 years or just since the riots.
I did some basics like ruled out women with hyphenated last names. I found a little info on a few that I knew would likely be trustworthy.
The sad thing is that some states leaders will decide to act on a faithless elector based on if the end result is too their liking.
Sign on to what?
The Constitution clearly states individual states can appoint electors however the individual state legislature chooses. Sadly, the Constitution stopped mattering many, many years ago.
or better yet, would it be legal for Michigan or Ohio to force electors to follow the popular vote of California?
This would 100% disenfranchise all your state voters.
Not much difference between this and a national popular vote since the end result is to disenfranchise your own states’ voters.
It's not about the popular vote compact. But if a state can bind the electors then they can probably bind them to the compact if the state enacts it.
Electors are appointed by State Legislatures, this power is sole and unreviewable.
Therefore. If the process a State Legislature chooses to appoint its electors is allowing idiots to vote, and if their process includes a specification that electors so chosen must follow the direction provided by the legislature, then this is a correct, constitutional decision.
And yes, some electors may very well be willing to go to jail for overturning an election.
However, I somewhere I thought the state had to verify the elector's vote.
"There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot." https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/
I remember all the dust stirred up when the Demorat electors were trying to vote against the popular vote in their state. If that had been permitted then there would be no need for voters to vote if an elector could choose who they wanted.
Awarding electoral votes on the basis of popular vote. . . that is NATIONAL popular vote. Such a law in a small state counteracts the purpose of the electoral college: to prevent the sheer numbers of populous states to completely overwhelm the election results of small states. If I lived in Wyoming, I wouldn’t want the results of California and New York elections having more influence on determining the electors of Wyoming than the votes of Wyoming citizens.
“in a manner to be decided by the state legislatures” apparently means just that.
Interesting we have a unanimous decision by the Justices wherein the law and the Constitution were actually relied upon to make a ruling instead of making something up.
I actually thought those states were requiring their electors to vote for the popular vote-winner of the entire nation, not their own particular states.
Am I wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.