[Steven W.]

Electoral College voters can be forced to abide by state popular vote, Supreme Court says

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/supreme-court-electoral-college-ruling-states-can-force-electors-to-abide-by-popular-vote.html

States can require Electoral College voters to back the victor of their state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday, in a major dispute that could have an impact on November’s presidential contest.

Two cases were brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to back Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, despite her wins in those states.

Like most states, Washington and Colorado have laws that require electors to vote for their pledged candidate. The electors argued that the enforcement of those laws was unconstitutional.

[little jeremiah]

THis is actually good since it’s much more likely demshevik states will want their electors to vote for whichever crippled demshevik candidate is propped up to run against Trump even if Trump wins popular vote. What is your view?

[thinden]

SCOTUS comes thru upholding the electoral college.

hildabeast prolly buying her gin by the case

[Yulee]

States can require Electoral College voters to back the victor of their state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday, in a major dispute that could have an impact on November’s presidential contest.
*************
Now, if Electoral College voters were required to vote as the majority of each Congressional District votes, instead of statewide majority takes all. The Dems couldn’t cheat so much.

[Bob Ireland]

***Two cases were brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to back Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, despite her wins in those states***

This somewhat surprised me; I don't remember hearing about the electors refusing to support Hillary. What I have seen is that these two states were trying to pass a law that its state's electors could vote for the winner of the national popular vote.

In this decision Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the state electors must follow the votes of their citizens: "a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen.". This was always the crucial constitutional point for me - the states' electors cannot disenfranchise their own voters.

Those states attempting to change how a state is represented in the Electoral College would appear to be set back towards tradition.