Posted on 10/06/2004 8:32:36 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Well, yeah !!
The Constitution says that only the State Legislature can formulate the way Presidential electors are allocated or determined for that matter.
You're preaching to the choir.
Freepers in Colorado need to tell their friends to vote against the unconstitutional Amendment 36 that will be on the ballot. It would change the allocation of Electoral College votes from winner-take-all to propotional. The campaign is being funded by weathy interests in California. I wonder why they don't propose the same type of amendment to be passed by a state-wide referendum in California?
It is unconstitutional, because it is a referendum. The constitution very specifically says that the state legislatures, and only the state legislatures have the authority to determine the method by which electors are chosen! The Colorado legislature very specifically rejected such a system.
As long as large states like California, New York and Texas do not change from a winner take all system, it is not in the interest of small states like Colorado to do so.
I also don't want to forgot to mention that it also violates the federal election code. The method by which the electors is selected must be in place before (as I recall at least six days prior to) the date the electors are chosen which is election day. Even if the a referendum were a valid mechanism of determining the method of allocating electors, this referendum is too late to affect the 2004 election. This referendum should be fought in court and removed from the ballot.
Article II.Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
I finally heard some radio ads against this ammendment. The ad was quite good actually, mentioning many CO papers, including Denver Post, Boulder Daily Camera, Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction), and the Pueblo paper all came out against it. So word is beginning to spread.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the election comes down to Colorado's electoral votes and the whole affair ends up in the Colorado Supreme Court.
I'll give you a hint. This referndum is being pushed by a wealthy DemocRAT activist from California. If it's such a great idea, why doesn't he push such a referendum in California? Perhaps you can also see why the founding fathers wanted gave the state legislatures the sole authority to determine the method by which a state's presidential electors are chosen. Referenda give outsiders a tremendous opportunities to meddle in the affairs of another state.
Exactly-- my guess is any Fed Court will toss the amendment.
Gee, Ms Brown, don’t you think the President’s visits to Maine might have something to do with the fact his parents live there? Either Julie Brown is a fool or she thinks her fellow Coloradoans are.
This measure will not pass.
No! I hope that if it passes, the electoral votes are irrelevant to who wins or loses the presidential election.
I went out to the Make Your Vote Count website. They are apparently aware of potential constitutional problems with this. It is quite obvious this referndum is intended to encourage litigation to create a test case. Considering that the Colorado legislature rejected legislation that would have split its Electoral Vote proportionally, I think they along with the governor should refuse to enforce this amendement if it passes and force the proponents to sue.
Even if it wins, the measure is certain to be challenged in the courts due to questions about its constitutionality.Article II of the Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."
The Colorado ballot measure is being voted on by the people directly, not by the state legislature. But Denver attorney Mark Grueskin, who drafted the measure, said there are Supreme Court precedents supporting the idea of the people being the ultimate authority in such electoral law cases.
Much of the funding of the effort to pass the ballot measure has come from Jorge Klor de Alva, a California resident and a business executive who heads a firm called Apollo International, which is linked to Apollo Group, parent company of the University of Phoenix.
The founder of the Apollo group is Dr. John Sperling, who has been a major Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars to candidates from John Kerry to Howard Dean. Klor de Alva has contributed to the campaigns of two Democratic congressional candidates.
That's true, but you're forgetting our activist Supreme Court whose motto is:
"The Constitution Is What We Say It Is"
Our Black Robed oligarchs have been unconstitutionally changing our Constitution incrementally for years.
No one can point to the words of the Constitution any longer and define its meaning while the spector of the High Court lingers waiting to change it yet again.
Yeah, but not this court.
Gee, Ms Brown, don?t you think the President?s visits to Maine might have something to do with the fact his parents live there?
Some of the polls indicate W is close to winning the Maine. If he won the state but split the districts, he would pick up a net of two electoral votes. Of course this is still a smaller net pickup than any other state or the District of Columbia. Nebraska which also theoretically splits its electoral votes by district not proportionally has also never actually had its congressional districts diverge from the state-wide vote. Why should larger states decrease their impact when small states are unlikely to split their votes?
What a lovely sight it would be to have the DNC lawyers trying to get their own Initiative struck down.
Or maybe excrementally.
Yeah, who would spend a nickle in Colorado when the political polarity is sort of a constant and when yo divide 8 electors, the difference between a win and a landslide wouldn't amount to on elector hardly. Therefore Colorado ends up with exactly ZERO clout.
Dr. Jorge Klor de Alva is/was CEO of the Apollo Group, Inc. about 2000. John Sperling was former chairman and CEO of the Apollo Group, and it is known that Sperling and Soros have worked together quite a bit.
From what I've read they're already preparing to do so. They could even challenge the retroactivity to the 2004 election without affecting the future elections.
Of course. This has the mark of Soros!
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.