U.S. Supreme Court to hear presidential Electoral College dispute

Reuters ^ | 5/13/2020 | Andrew Chung, Lawrence Hurley

[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.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, I agree...

[SoCal Pubbie]

The legislators cannot transfer their duties to citizens outside their state. To do so is to represent citizens other than those of their own state. It is quite obvious except to a lawyer I suppose who can infer any number of meanings to words written in plain English.

The same would apply to the so-called compact states regarding the electoral college. The electors would no longer be representing the people of their own state but the people of the 50 states as an aggregate based on the total popular vote.

[proud American in Canada]

I wouldn’t presume to mess around with the Constitution. The Founders were geniuses. I mean that quite literally.

[proud American in Canada]

Meant to say, mess around with such an important issue as as the EC.

[Svartalfiar]

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

When the State legislature chose them directly. They still determine how they are chosen, and that manner is through party-slate electors, who are chosen based on the votes of their State.



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.

State Parties choose electors because that is what the Legislature directed, and they can change that if they wanted. But who else would you trust to vote the way you direct? You can't just pick Joe Shmoe off the street and assume he'll vote how he's supposed to. Obviously, the electors have to come from within the party. And at that point, you just have to basically choose who you think is the most trustworthy.

[Valpal1]

You are spot on.

The other reason the founders allowed electors to vote their conscience (i.e. faithless) was because they knew “shit happens”, like a winning candidate dies before the electors meet or pick any strange but disqualifying scenario. Back then electors were men of substance and intellect who could afford to travel and as such were expected to be able to exercise reason and calm in changed or dire circumstances.

I think this lawsuit is simply another step toward abolishing the electoral college as part of the progs overarching plan to destroy the republic.

[a real Sheila]

A good friend who is an attorney constantly tells us “Everybody has a price.” In his years he has seen or heard of even the MOST respected, seemingly incorruptible people ‘bought off’ by the right $ amount. A few million in the right elector’s hands could change an election, for sure.