RBG :
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 ...
I’ve read about the “no compacts” rule, and think it should hold here. But, I’ve also read arguments that the compacts rule applies to commercial transactions, or to agreements that supersede Federal Law. And the law on elections is that states are sovereign, and select their electors howsoever they please.
Of course, the compact is a circular argument as well as an end-run around the Constitution. Some tally of national votes would be taken, and then the States in the compact would go along with it. That would make the selection of electors non-endogenous to the States. Further, in a close election, the last vote fraud would have dramatic impact. We could expect recounts to go on for years!
I agree entirely.
But “wny’s” post was rather absolute in its support of States’ rights to choose electors however they pleased.
> “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.”
I don’t remember this as true. In fact, I remember the issue was just the opposite. I can tell the Reuters reporters are biased towards Hillary so I am inclined to think their writeup here is confused.
I remember there were electors that were pressured to vote for Hillary in states where the majority of votes went to Trump but state law required the electors to support the candidate backed by the state’s majority vote.
The issue was whether an elector could vote according to the NATIONAL popular vote ignoring state laws.
>>Like all things, this is simply bout Trump.
Paultards wanted to do this in 2004 to replace GBush with Ron Paul.
And Bernie Bros wanted to do this in 2016.
I think they tried doxing some electors in 2016 to intimidate some pledged to Trump to vote for Hillary instead.
ultimately they would try to seat “enemy camp” voters as electors.
That was despite a pitched effort by some on the left who wrote letters to Trump electors trying to persuade them to switch their votes or not vote at all and keep Trump short of the 270 needed.
Not only did it not happen, but more electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton Monday than from Trump, by a count of eight to two. Three Democratic electors in Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado tried to vote for candidates other than Clinton. The electors’ votes, however, were disallowed because of state rules binding them to the statewide popular vote winner.
“the guy may have broken it, but in my opinion it’s a stupid law, so I say he’s innocent.”
Which is your perfect unassailable right as a juror.
L
I actually agree with you.
Although I am not comfortable with the Electoral College just doing whatever it wants, I am comfortable with jury nullification. But the courts have typically not been OK with it. They frown on jurors talking about it.
I think, for consistency, if the Supreme Court gives a green light to Electors using their own judgment, then jury deliberations ought to openly include the idea of jury nullification.
“.... I remember there were electors that were pressured to vote for Hillary in states where the majority of votes went to Trump but state law required the electors to support the candidate backed by the state’s majority vote. ….”
Please name the states because I don’t remember that!
(Washington State) Despite Clinton's victory, four Democratic electors defected. Three voted for Colin Powell, making him the first African-American Republican to receive electoral votes, while a Native American activist cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, making her the first Native American to receive an electoral vote for president.
(Texas) Trump earned 38 pledged electoral votes, but lost two to faithless electors One elector voted for Ron Paul for president and Mike Pence for vice president, while another voted for John Kasich for president and Carly Fiorina for vice president.
(Hawaii) Hillary Clinton received 3 electoral votes. One elector voted for Bernie Sanders for president and Elizabeth Warren for vice president.
(Maine) Maine distributes 2 EVs based on the statewide vote and 1 EV for each congressional district's vote. (Not faithless electors).
This tempest in a teapot is just another attempt at the Dems to increase the power of their large urban base and decrease the strength of the rural vote. The same battle has been ongoing since the 1800’s.
I believe that in each case, the delegates were changing their vote in a mild protest to each party's nominee.
Not really. Read the 14th amendment, section 2.
-—I believe that in each case, the delegates were changing their vote in a mild protest to each party’s nominee. -—
Yes. Because they knew a vote change qualified as a “mild protest” and wouldn’t change the outcome.
Yes, that is what this is about.
“...The evil in this woman is the only thing keeping her alive. ...at a great expense to the country....”
Lil’ Ruthie sold her soul to Satan a loonnng time ago in return for eternal life on the SCOTUS. However, the Reaper will not be denied...it’s only a matter of time.
FWIW, she’s being kept alive by the very best medical care available on the face of the planet. Care that the “unwashed masses” could only dream about.
You sound like you don’t understand how Electors are chosen.
Each party has a slate of Electors in each state. They select the slate based upon party loyalty.
If their slate wins, they get to represent their state in the Electoral College. Sure Don Trump Jr could be free to vote for Hillary...but it’s not going to actually happen.
In general, the handful of “defectors” have only been to make a statement when the election is not in doubt. They don’t switch to the opposing major candidate, but they do things like reversing the votes for President and Vice President (for the already losing candidate).
This is about the “faithless elector”, where a Colorado elector was removed for not voting for the Colorado candidate.
HOWEVER, this is also about the “faithless State” where Colorado law now says the State elector must ignore the Colorado voter and vote for the candidate with the most popular votes.
Colorado wants to say their electors must follow the voter but then says the electors must NOT follow the voter.
” If I’m on the jury, I can decide whatever I want. “
Actually, that is EXACTLY the purpose of the juror. Juries are part of the checks and balances of power. They are NOT supposed to rubber stamp the king’s laws.
We really have failed to teach civics in High School.
Not that simple. What is the will of the “state?”
Could a governor make an executive order to overturn the votes of its citizens and vote a different way?
I’m sorry but it happened. Hillary Clinton LOST more Electoral votes than Donald Trump.
In Washington state Hillary prevailed, but out of 12 Electoral votes she got 8. Chief Spotted Eagle got 1 vote, and Colin Powell got 3 votes. In Hawaii Hillary prevailed, but out of 4 Electoral votes she got 3. Bernie Sanders got 1 vote.
Trump only lost 2 Electoral votes, both in Texas. Out of 38 votes, he got 36. Ron Paul got 1 vote and John Kasich got 1 vote.
The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.
“Despite thousands of voters writing Republican electors and trying to convince them to flip against Trump due to Clinton’s winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, chances were very slim that this would actually happen.”
In Texas:
“One of the electors, Sisneros, did not want to vote for Trump.”
There was a concerted effort by the Hillary campaign to strip electors away from their required vote for Trump. There were no such efforts from the Trump campaign as it wasn’t necessary.
“On December 14, the Unite For America campaign released a video published on YouTube and other media addressed directly to Republican electors urging that each of them individually, plus 36 of their colleagues (at least 37 Republican electors in total), vote for a Republican other than Donald Trump for President. The video featured numerous public figures, including Debra Messing, Martin Sheen, and Bob Odenkirk, urging Republican electors to prevent a Trump presidency,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0iuWh3sek
Watch Debra Messing, Martin Sheen and Other Stars Urge Electors to Prevent a Trump Presidency
https://people.com/politics/watch-debra-messing-martin-sheen-and-other-stars-urge-electors-to-prevent-a-trump-presidency
Full-page ads turn up the heat on Trump electors
A pro-Clinton activist is running newspaper ads in Philadelphia, Austin, Salt Lake City and Tampa Bay.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-electors-activist-campaign-electoral-college-232635
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.