Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Colorado electors plan to challenge state law in bid to derail Donald Trump's victory
The Colorado Springs Gazette ^ | December 3, 2016 | Rachel Riley and The Associated Press

Posted on 12/03/2016 8:00:19 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Four of Colorado's nine Electoral College electors plan to challenge a state law that would prevent a long-shot bid to keep President-elect Donald Trump out of the White House.

Robert Nemanich, of Colorado Springs, said Saturday he and three other electors intend to sue Colorado's governor, attorney general, secretary of state and state Democratic Party chairman claiming state law requiring electors to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates "who received the highest number of votes at the preceding general election in this state," is unconstitutional....

(Excerpt) Read more at gazette.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: co2016; colorado; election; electoralcollege; trump; trumptransition; washington; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last
To: Baldwin77

It’s the pot head state. They are too stoned to understand that they are already voting for Hillary.


61 posted on 12/03/2016 8:44:41 PM PST by MrEdd (MrEdd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Where’s that, ‘Oh no, not this s-— again,’ meme?


62 posted on 12/03/2016 8:46:16 PM PST by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: willyd
This isn’t about this election cycle... they are attacking the electoral college... if they can get a popular vote..they think they can win every election going forward.

Perhaps you're right. But isn't there more than just a little bit of tension between the positions that

1. Electors should be free to exercise independent judgment and must not be constrained by laws that require them to vote for the winner of the presidential election in the state.

-- and --

2. Electors should not exercise independent judgment. They should be compelled to vote for the nationwide popular vote winner.

Of course, intellectual consistency has never been a strong suit for Democrats.

63 posted on 12/03/2016 8:46:34 PM PST by SSS Two
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

If Trump didn’t get 270 then house of Representatives votes. They choose from the top 3 electoral vote winners. If a nevertrumper got 1 vote he would be eligible candidate along with Trump and Hillary.


64 posted on 12/03/2016 8:46:54 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

That pic reminds me of when I was about 6 years old. We were in the process of moving, and I wanted to play with an electric toy. My Mom said I couldn’t as the electricity had already been turned off.

I pried a Bobby pin apart, and stuck it in the wall socket. My Mother lied.


65 posted on 12/03/2016 8:49:32 PM PST by sockmonkey (Donald Trump will ban auto-correct with an Executive Order. Go Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Nominee?

You mean, the president-elect? The next president?

That’s what the vice-president-elect is for.

BTW, abducted by a foreign power? So, where would the Secret Service have been? Where would the “then current” president have been? That would have called for war, believe it or not, so, who in their right minds, in that “foreign power”, have undertaken an event that would have triggered certain war?


66 posted on 12/03/2016 8:49:37 PM PST by adorno (w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: basalt

A healthy fear of the pitchfork army keeps the electors in line, not these state laws that may not hold up to a constitutional challenge. There would be serious civil unrest in the wake of a rogue electoral college resulting in a president the people did not elect. Of course the Democrats desire such a result, many want our institutions to burn, to be replaced by mob rule.


67 posted on 12/03/2016 8:49:47 PM PST by John Robinson (I am a twit @_John_Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good luck with that.


68 posted on 12/03/2016 8:50:00 PM PST by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

This insanity all started in 1983 with the election of Federico Peña, after a two-foot Christmas Blizzard. Mayor McNichols, assuming Coloradans could deal with a snowstorm didn’t get the streets all plowed and summery right away. We then got “Imagine A Great City”, and Colorado went straight downhill ever since. We also got a new airport, where an expansion to the current one would have worked wonderfully, but of course the land deals had to take priority. Peña got rich and we got screwed.


69 posted on 12/03/2016 8:50:12 PM PST by Cololeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Does ANYONE read the constitution?

The House can ONLY select from the top 3 vote getters.

Last I saw “someone like Romney” isn’t on the ballot.


70 posted on 12/03/2016 8:52:07 PM PST by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: usafa92

This reaches new levels of stupidity.


71 posted on 12/03/2016 8:52:47 PM PST by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: adorno

Banal.

The Electoral College covers ALL contingencies- notably the ones idiots can’t concieve of.


72 posted on 12/03/2016 8:55:07 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Cololeo

I would love to hear your take on the Denver airport that replaced Stapelton.


73 posted on 12/03/2016 8:59:54 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9

74 posted on 12/03/2016 9:00:19 PM PST by SIDENET (My next tagline will be so awesome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: adorno

what if there are three nominees with EC members, and no one nominee has a simple majority of EC members?

The fallback is that the EC can still function as the FFs intended in a pinch. The notion of reeplacing human ECs with automatic votes does not cover various corner cases that the FF EC design does.


75 posted on 12/03/2016 9:00:40 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Noble

“I have no doubt that laws binding electors, once they have been appointed, are unconstitutional.”

Perhaps, but the Democratic Party in Colorado is responsible for keeping their Electors in line.

From the National Association of Secretaries of State in their section covering Colorado Electors:

“If any vacancy occurs in the office of a presidential elector because of death, refusal to act, absence, or other cause, the presidential electors present shall immediately proceed to fill the vacancy in the electoral college. When all vacancies have been filled, the presidential electors shall proceed to perform the duties required of them by the constitution and laws of the United States.”

http://www.nass.org/component/docman/?task=doc_download&gid=1864&Itemid=391

It seems pretty clear to me that it’s up to the Dims to fix this. Or not.


77 posted on 12/03/2016 9:08:23 PM PST by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

1) this looks like it would only affect Colorado.

2) are these Sanders supporters that the DNC attempted to absorb without converting? A sort of identity politics move that is backfiring?


78 posted on 12/03/2016 9:09:01 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

More “progressives” who want to change the rules when ever things don’t go their way.

I bet it was hell playing cards or board games with these whining brats when they were kids.


79 posted on 12/03/2016 9:10:32 PM PST by Iron Munro (If Illegals voted Rebublican 50 Million Democrats Would Be Screaming "Build The Wall!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
Last I saw “someone like Romney” isn’t on the ballot.

No one is "on the ballot" yet. The Electoral College hasn't met yet. It is possible (though very highly unlikely) that faithless electors could prevent any candidate from having a majority and, at the same time, provide a third name for the House of Representatives to consider.

80 posted on 12/03/2016 9:10:49 PM PST by SSS Two
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson