Posted on 07/06/2020 7:32:02 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.
The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by their voters.
"Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority decision.
--This breaking news report will be updated.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Even the commies were afraid to go there. It would negate even having elections.
Well, that I didn’t know. (which is why I pay money to frequent FR)
If that is the case, why would it even be a problem?
I can’t imagine a GOP winning the popular vote in that state, and then kicking back and saying to the DEM Electors “Okay, you can have our votes we are supposed to cast, and cast them as you wish...”
2 Republican electors in TX refused to vote for Trump.
One voted for Ron Paul. One for Kasich.
Reduced Trump from 304 to 302.
State laws have the state party and/or the Presidential campaign decide whom their electors are. Texas GOP has to do a better job of it.
This sounds like the state’s choice. So, if a state AGREES with faithless electors, would they be allowed with the state’s complicity?
Yep. All it would take is for a well-funded Soros type to fund billions to pay off enough electors to get the desired “election” result.
You're thinking of Faith Spotted Eagle.
It strengthens it. Remember the Constitution says the state legislature decides how to assign their EC votes. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with popular vote, on any level. They can just tell electors how to vote. They could flip a coin. They could make it dependent on the weather. Or a sporting event. Whatever they want, however they want, just so long as it happens on the approved schedule. And this reiterates that the Electors have to do what their legislature tells them too.
Kagan’s specific language refers to the state’s voters wishes being honored. Using that language when she did not have to is an indication that the PV Compact would have a very tough time.
There were 7 faithless votes cast ... and counted by Congress. In 2016. All Legitimate and Constitutional.
This means the 4 in WASHINGTON must pay the $1000 fine.
Baca tried to be #8. In COLORADO. the state intervened and replaced him with an alternate. He sued. He lost today. His removal was Constitutional.
Different laws in different states.
“Therefore they can tell the electors to vote for the National Popular Vote winner.”
It’s unconstitutional.
As it has worked for the past 200+ years, a candidate in a given state wins the popular vote in that state and thus wins those electors as a winner takes all.
This compact will undo that. So candidate
“A” wins a given state by a landslide now faces losing that states electors (and possibly the overall election) because candidate “B” so-called “won” the national popular vote.
How many of those national popular votes are duplicates? How many are from illegals? How many are from other forms of voter fraud?
Take out the illegals and the dead people who were registered to vote from just LA County alone and President Trump would have “won” the popular vote too.
“If your state gives your electoral votes to the national popular vote winner does that mean you have standing to demend ballot recounts and audits and investigations into every precinct in America since it determines who your state elects as president?”
Us Kulaks have no standing.
Hurry, back to counting trees before the Kommissar returns.
Second sentence of Kagan’s syllabus:
“ The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred.”
The candidate the state’s citizens prefer! Not some other state’s citizens. Kagan did not have to phrase it that way. She could have just noted the supremacy of that state’s laws regardless.
The NPVC will be found unConstitutional.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from directing the electors how to vote.”
The US Constitution does not work that way. It works by defining what the Federal and State governments are allowed to do, not by defining what they are not allowed to do. It can’t be otherwise, because it would be impossible to list every possible disallowed action, creating a loophole of infinite size for all sorts of tyrannical actions.
Hamilton makes that explicit in Federalist #84.
“The US Constitution does not work that way. It works by defining what the Federal and State governments are allowed to do”
That is true for the Federal government (10th Amendment) but not for the states.
These state compacts were approved by both houses of the legislature and signed by the governors. So you could posit that the State citizens approved/ preferred the the choice thru their elected representatives.
Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors by Congressional District.
Oh, sure, there are arguments. But the whole process is an attempt to amend the Constitution without actually amending it.
The SC doesn’t like such ‘amendments’ to be so obvious.
Unless a state legislature passes a law that says the Electors of that state will follow the national popular vote. Then its perfectly legal in the eyes of all nine USSC judges.
Cute. Meanwhile, back in reality, I’m right. State legislatures can hook their EC to the popular vote if they want. They could hook it to another state’s vote. They can hook it to ANYTHING.
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”
Not all states even used the vote at first. A few just did direct appointment. Legislature said “you lot, go vote for this guy”.
The point is that the states each can decide how their electors have to vote. The states make their own rules so they can tell the electors that they have to vote for the one that wins the state’s popular vote, the national popular vote or even on a percentage basis if they want.
The constitution leaves it up to the individual states.
No doubt this is an attempt to circumvent the Constitution and go to direct election of a President rather than thru the Amendment process. The Dems have won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections. Obviously, they see NPV as a way to be the permanent majority party.
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.