No they are separate questions. Electors may be required to vote according to state law, but that doesn't mean the interstate compact is legal.
Bump
“The Court correctly determines that States have the power to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidate chosen by the people of the State.” - Thomas
Looks like the ‘Compact’ idea is DEAD !
They key will be WHICH SLATE OF ELECTORS gets selected.
Do the ‘compact’ states put into place the Electors based on the slate based on the National vote?
or do they put into place the Electors for the slate based on the State vote?
To be specific, let us say that the Republican’s (R) win the popular vote in a State. That the Democrats (D) win the national vote.
We have two slates, R and D. Which one goes to the electoral college in that State? The R slate or the D slate?
Each slate will have pledged to vote for their respective candidate (now mandated).
I expect when the crisis comes, both slates will go. both slates will cast their votes. Then Congress will decide which votes to count... and the Supremes will be left to apologize for the decision.
You are right. This does not give a green light to the NPV compact. That is an issue that will come before the court another day.
I suspect that the NPV compact will be ruled unconstitutional as it would nullify the reason for having the EC, which is in the constitution for a reason.
It will also be ruled unconstitutional as it disenfranchises the voters of that state. If allowed, a state could say its electors will go to the winner of California's election instead of their home state.
“No they are separate questions. Electors may be required to vote according to state law, but that doesn’t mean the interstate compact is legal.”