Posted on 05/13/2020 4:33:08 AM PDT by EBH
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.
If enough electors do so, it could upend an election.
The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump.
The litigation involves the presidential election system set out in the U.S. Constitution in which the winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.
While that number of so-called faithless electors did not change the election’s outcome, it would have in five of the 58 previous U.S. presidential elections.
State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs said the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
thanks
They don’t exactly have a “blank check” right now.
Most of the states have requirements to vote for the popular vote winner of that state. If they attempt to vote for another, they are ruled invalid and removed as we saw in 2016.
Only 18 states have no laws requiring Electors to vote with the people’s choice.
I am torn on the issue. I suppose the loyalty to the party requires a lot of faith in people.
Let us also recall that at least a couple of times Electors ATTEMPTED to vote against Trump. Their votes were cancelled and new Electors brought in to vote for Trump.
As our politics gets more radicalized, we could see a WHOLE LOT more of these types of shenanigans.
I know how the Electoral College works. And I agree thus far it has been effective.
My points are that as we grow more radicalized, we may enter a place where so much “faithlessness” occurs it damages the integrity of the elections.
Its weird to think my electors could go to someone not even on the ballot in my state....
But then why have an election if the Legislature is going to pick the winner? And if they get to pick the electors then that is exactly what will happen. No ones vote will matter. The states pick for president will always go to the party in control. There will be no other outcome. Judging by the way the democrats are constantly infiltrating everything then We get Obama’s forever under that scenario.
“I’m desperately trying to figure out the point of laws which require people to do something they already desperately want to do anyway - vote for THEIR candidate.”
You are right that this was not a problem in 2016 - only a few electors were faithless - and it didn’t happen anywhere it could have made a difference in the outcome.
But I don’t understand why it couldn’t potentially be a problem. Put another way, I question your assertion that electors remaining faithful is something they “....already desperately want to do anyway - vote for THEIR candidate.”
All the time, we see politicians running as conservatives in order to get elected, and then once in office voting like liberals.... we call them “RINOs”. What keeps an elector from doing the same - winning his seat in the electoral college under false pretenses?
I understand that many electors also serve as elected officials in state and local government, and that being “faithless” would likely anger voters and adversely impact an elector’s political career.
But that ultimate accountability to constituency does not prevent RINOs from being RINOs - so I don’t understand why you are so convinced it would not happen with electors.
I have always been curious what keeps electors in line - hopefully you can explain it to me.
No need to speculate. Here is what WILL happen IF Trump loses: He will resign the morning after the election, make Pence the President, and ask Pence to pardon him. Over and out.
We would have Hillary Clinton for President right now if it wasn’t for the
Electoral College. I do not approve of bastardizing it.
Exactly! And this is why republicans and many conservatives miss the boat.
The left pays attention to the minutia of matters.
Right now today...a big argument on the court is happening. It holds the possibility to change our entire electoral and election system.
HELLO! I sure pray we have the best making arguments that can shut down the liberal supremes.
Today’s arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-518_5h25.pdf
JUSTICE GORSUCH: — just to interrupt
you, I’m sorry, counsel, but you’ve — you’ve
indicated it would be fine for people to have an
advisory vote to 12 wise people who would then
make the final decision.
Why — why couldn’t you also have a
system in which the people provide advice within
certain parameters set by the legislature?
MR. WEISER: Your Honor, I think
that’s the same context I had in mind, which is
you would basically give people an advisory vote
and then, after the fact, you’d have to ask
whether the —
JUSTICE GORSUCH: No, not after the
fact. They’ve been alerted prior to the fact,
counsel. That’s my hypothetical. I — I — I
understand your point about after the fact.
In advance, they’ve been notified that
there are — they are free to provide advice to
— to — to — to 12 electors, whatever the
number may be, and their advice, though, is
going to be bounded and there are certain things
that the electors have to — have to, because
the legislature says, abide by or else they’ll
Heritage Reporting Corporation
And those are, again, you know, has
the presidential candidate visited the state,
has he taken this or that position, has he or
she, you know, turned over her tax returns?
Whatever — whatever the conditions may be.
It’s a bounded choice.
You’ve been arguing that choice can be
bounded. And this is just another bounds. What
prohibits the State from doing that?
MR. WEISER: In this situation, the
State can add limitations as long as they comply
with other constitutional provisions.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: And do those?
MR. WEISER: The requirement to visit
a state I don’t believe clearly violates any
constitutional provision. The tax return issue,
we’ve noted, raises a Qualification Clause
question that could be a real concern. And the
JUSTICE GORSUCH: So the presidential
candidate is on the ballot. It’s who the
electors can vote for. Is that a qualifications
problem in the State’s view?
MR. WEISER: Yes, it would be because,
if you tell electors they can only vote for —
pick whatever the concern would be — tax
returns, people over 50, the concern is you
could be adding a new qualification to be
President and thereby disqualify, in effect,
someone from being President who the
Constitution would qualify to be President.
I have been following this movement for years. Slowly, one by one, they have knocked off one state after another. The state legislatures and governors have signed off on these intrastate compacts. It is important that SCOTUS rule on the constitutionality of the compacts now.
The objective is to circumvent the Electoral College knowing they couldn’t pass an amendment to eliminate it and elect the President by popular vote.
-—I have always been curious what keeps electors in line - hopefully you can explain it to me.——
What keeps them in line is Party loyalty which is very strong at the Fed election level. Meaning that nobody (as you said) wants to be the faithless vote that ruins the election for their own party. Even a Romney-type wouldn’t go so far as to be the deciding vote to sabotage the EC against their own Party. Voting on bills or sucking up to the media is one thing. Ruining their career completely is something else.
-—But that ultimate accountability to constituency does not prevent RINOs from being RINOs - so I don’t understand why you are so convinced it would not happen with electors.-—
It’s not that it’s theoretically impossible, it’s that the election would have to be incredibly close, and you’d need enough to be willing to stick their neck out to change the outcome. Not just an EC protest vote when they know the thing is decided.
Mccains, Romneys and Flakes are unusual, and there wouldn’t be enough fellow-traveling EC voters who would agree with them and be brave enough to vote to swing it.
I just don’t see it as a practical or likely possibility that needs to be worried about.
That's the question. Does each State have the authority to order its Electors to vote a certain way? The Washington Supreme Court said yes, but the Tenth Circuit said no. If the Supreme Court had refused to hear these cases, the States would be unsure of their authority in this matter.
The Washington State Electors were each fined $1,000. The Colorado Elector is suing for nominal damages. Justice Kavanaugh questioned the Colorado Elector's standing.
The problem is that state parties choose electors. They need to do a better job. Faithless electors have the right to be faithless. Don’t like that but that is what the constitution says. You need an amendment to change that. And no state vote for electors can be based on what another state does. You need an amendment to change that too.
The last time state legislature chose electors was in 1876 when the Colorsdo legislature picked Rutherford Hayes electors because they didn’t want to spend money as a new state where the vote for the legislature just happened
There certainly does seem to be something keeping electors faithful...
Is there perhaps some sort of impeachment or recall process that voters can resort to if faithlessness of electors is in danger of turning an election?
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.