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 ...
If they were free to do so they wouldn't be in court over it. But their argument is that this law is unconstitutional.
No, that's an entirely different issue.
If they rule on the Constitution faithfully, they will rule that the electors have no legal or constitutional duty to voter for a specific candidate.
Anyone want to take that bet?
The Electoral College is the firewall which protects us from massive blue state vote fraud.
“...Whether they’re free to disregard laws?!...”
Obvious and copious DEMOCRAT fingerprints all over this. Breaking the laws is what they do, and they are trying to do it again here to CRUSH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
Fixed it.
See the NPR article I linked in post 44
Pretty much correct. The arguments for this will be interesting.
Oh but Colorado is where the state didn’t recognize same-sex marriage yet persecuted a Christian cake maker because they would not bake a cake for a cake same-sex wedding.
The FEC should’ve gotten involved because those Democrats were doxing and intimidating electoral college voters
I didn’t respond to your post #47. I responded to your post #43 in which you stated you did not believe that Hillary lost electoral votes to faithless electors.
She lost 5 votes.
But I suppose you didn’t intend for it to come across as it did.
You’ll give yourself a headache trying to rationalize Colorado’s mentally ill liberals decisions. I had to quit or take up some serious drinking.
I agree they are seemingly free to vote how they want as the Constitution is written, but what would happen if they had a blank check written by the Supreme Court itself to disregard the will of the people whenever they “feel” like it??
What would happen then? Do we want a dictatorship of 538 people making the decisions the people of the various states should make? What would happen if people started bribing the Electoral College? What would happen if the candidates only had to sway the Electoral College?
Keep in mind, I fully support the federalism of the states electing the president, and would prefer our Senators return to being appointed by the states too. The Founders certainly did not want the Electoral College to dictate to the nation any more than they wanted the 9 people of the Supreme Court to do so.
RE: No more dealing with 2nd Am. rights cases any more.
Gee I guess I should feel better-—except I don’t.
And most will secretly be fans of Oprah, the View and Ellen, and form their opinions by watching Don Lemon, Jake Tapper and Morning Joe. Sophisticated./s
They have that blank check right now. I don’t have a particular problem with states requiring a vote for the candidate an elector stood for, but that’s a state issue. The check against bribery, other that laws against it, is largely on the candidates/parties in the selection of electors. This case seems to be about states penalizing an unfaithful elector, and whether an elector’s vote can be . Electors have been allowed to be unfaithful since the Constitution went into force. Hasn’t been a big problem. Other than to Dems, selectively.
the loser
Yeah I meant #43. I knew Hillary lost 2 to Bernie Sanders and 3 to others but none to Trump.
However, the democrats for Hillary are the plaintiffs, they filed lawsuits to disconnect electors from state laws and they pressured electors to switch to Hillary. They also moved to form state pacts and also abolish the EC.
To me, it’s their agenda that is important.
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.