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 ...
Interesting. I would have thought the opposite because the whole idea of the electoral college is to override a stupid decision by the voters. Or so I thought.
The ballots aren’t sealed. The LISTS of votes are signed an certified and sent to Congress. They don’t receive 438 ballots.
I just reread 12th.
12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
It sounds like the state has no role in this: the electors vote by ballot, the electors tabulate the ballots into a list of president and vice-president and the number of votes for each, the electors sign the tabulation of lists, seal it and the electors transmit it to Congress.
Furthermore, from the 12th amendment:
...they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President...
If the state had the power to mandate that the electors vote for the state's popular vote winner, then why does the 12th amendment allow for the possibility of multiple people being voted for as President by the electors?
-PJ
once the socialists get mail in only established in every state, they will need this decree. As it is liberals with assets are cashing in and fleeing the cities to places like Montana, Wyoming, Utah Texas and Idaho, wont be long before the Electoral College is moot
So, per the Constitution, a State can criminalize and/or sanction an action by any Federal elected official, when performing any official (and Constitutionally-authorized) function of his or her elected office? Is that what you’re claiming?
Nat,
Thomas might agree with you if the electors met in one national location ... but I’d argue each E.C. meeting is a state function and subject to the laws of the state.
Thomas brought up the idea of proxy voting, which is similar to what most these electors are doing. The manner in which they were chosen involved them pledging themselves to a candidate.
Independent electors are necessary in the event of death or withdrawal of a candidate. And if no candidate wins an outright majority, it would be preferable to have a 3rd place finisher for the US House contingent election.
This is what I find objectionable, too
Removing an Elector per state law seems legal. Baca case.
Criminalizing his political act of breaking his pledge? Unconstitutional!!!
All of this happens per state law. State laws are why the Electors take a pledge.
See Maine, Nebraska. Vote split between 2 candidates.
2016: Texas, Hawaii, Washington, Maine all had multiple candidates receive votes and Congress accepted them.
“The Constitution says that Electors are to be chosen by the state legislatures. It does not require an election to choose the Electors.”
At one time that was the case, until the 14th amendment section 2 was ratified:
“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof”
Article II, section 1, pp 4: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
For a State to chose an Elector on any day other than the one appointed by Congress is specifically Unconstitutional. They have to stick with whomever they’ve chosen on the appointed day.
I’m not a lawyer, but does this clause require an election for choice for electors or only apply if there is such a vote? I suppose there will be no definitive answer until a state decides not hold an election for electors.
There was some talk in the aftermath of the election of 2000 when Gore was demanding recounts, that the Florida legislature could simply assign the votes to Bush, but of course, that didn’t happen.
What if an Elector dies?
But Baca, the plaintiff, could have used your ideas
Kagan wrote the majority opinion. Six others were with her. Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion and he was joined by Gorsuch.
Yeah, her
The 12th amendment allows for multiple candidates to be voted on for President by the electors of a single state.
Do you dispute this from a plain reading of the amendment?
-PJ
States plus D.C. with Bound Electors (the opposite of faithless electors). Bound electors MUST by state law vote for the winner of the popular vote IN THAT STATE.
Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska, Montana, Arizona, Nebraska, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Connecticut, North Carolina, Delaware Oklahoma, District of Columbia, Ohio, Florida, Oregon, Hawaii, South Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota & Wyoming.
Today’s SCOTUS opinion means states can penalize bound electors for attempting to go faithless.
Most of the state laws regarding Bound Electors require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.
Kagan and her fellow wild-eyed bomb-throwing Demwit pukes are laying groundwork for the NPV approval.
That’s why alternates are chosen at the same time. Same as they do for juries.
If we end up with a pure "Democracy" as some FReepers keep claiming we're "in danger" of becoming ("mob rule", blah blah blah), I hope someone gives these tyrannical activist federal judges the memo that they MUST obey the wishes of "the majority", and are bound to respect WHATEVER the "popular vote" on any given topic was.
So, time to reinstate Prop. 187, the people of California CLEARLY voted to cut off ALL benefits for illegal aliens, so they MUST do what the majority wanted in that case.
Have to reinstate the Defense of Marriage act too, and EVERY single state referendum that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Can't have ANY type of national decree legalizing gay marriage from coast to coast, cuz so many states flat out voted AGAINST it!
Personality I think these federal judges will obey "the majority" and "the will of the people" when hell freezes over, but hey, that's just me...
Liberal political elite only care about the "popular vote" when it goes there way.
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.