and they also might not have a home to return toPretty sure the elector laws differ from state to state. But, some uber intelligent judge someplace decides he’s smarter than the legislators. Then again, most of us are.
As I understand it, this throws a huge monkey wrench in those states trying to align electors with the national popular vote.
They can’t.
Actually that is just the opposite. It held up the rule that already existed, and scotched the rule that forced electors to vote for the popular vote winner.
If one reads the opinion, it is clear that the majority opinion is based on the intention of the Framers that Presidential electors were to have a large measure of discretion in how they voted. Original intent — it can be a bitch.
The ERA OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER has arrived.
Let them try it and see what happens when Trump pulls off a mega vote margin .
Electors are independent (temporary) officials who choose the President and Vice President.
Voting by individuals for President and Vice President is not mandated by the Constitution, and where voting for this purpose is allowed (in all 50 States, at present), the voters are choosing Electors, not a President.
All 50 States are free to change the method they use to choose Electors.
Because of this, there is not and there cannot be such a thing as a “national popular vote”.
A think a 2-1 vote means it was not the full court at that court of appeals. The next step will likely mean - think - that that appeals court, the full court, will have to weigh in as the latest decision is appealed further. Then AFTER that it will have to go the the SCOTUS.
It is up to the Party in each State to be sure the electors chosen are rock solid. This is not a big deal.
More importantly they through a monkey wrench in the Liberals attempt to bypass the EC with their Compact idea.
Citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest.
Why is this shocking to anyone? The Electoral Collage was intended from the start to be this way.
State election laws hold president until the Collage is assembled, per the Constitution. At hat point, state law does not apply.
Simple.
In 2000 Bush needed all his electors and he didn’t lose any.
Each state party assembles a slate of electors, made up of state party members and approved by the party's candidate. These slates are partisan and predisposed to vote for their party's candidate. "Winner take all" elections simply means that the state-wide winner determines which slate, in entirety, goes to the Electoral College.
This ruling seems to be moot because it does nothing about HOW the electors are chosen. It only says that once chosen, they are free to vote how they please. Since they were chosen as partisan slates, how they vote isn't really in doubt.
Things like the NPV compact affect which partisan slate gets selected, not really how they will vote once selected, which should be a foregone conclusion anyway.
-PJ
The point the Court made is that once chosen, each elector is a Federal officer no longer subject to state law.
Which is what the founders intended.
POTUS is elected by the Electors of the States, not by the States.
and they also might not have a home to return to