Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'

The Hill ^ | July 6, 2020 | Harper Neidig

[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.

[Evil Slayer]

Good idea.

[Rapscallion]

Great decision!

[usconservative]

I have the same question. Faithless Electors (those who go against their state's "will" via the states vote) can be outlawed by the State, but what about when a state SANCTIONS faithless electors via the National Popular Vote compact some states have entered into?

[rlmorel]

Yes, as others have opined, it isn't out of thin air, and this is a good decision, because when November rolls around, there will be the almost unanimous chorus from the left that the electors "do what the founders intended them to do, to vote their conscience, not what the electorate wants them to do".

No kidding. That's laughable, the Left talking about what the Founders intended.

You hear this every single election where a Republican wins on election night, and when the ballots are to be cast a month later on the second Wednesday in December, you hear this constantly leading up to it. Maybe this will finally put the kibosh on that.

Now, as Rurudyne pointed out, we have to stop this move to have states give their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular election.

From Wikipedia if you aren't familiar:
"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. As of March 2020, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia, although it is suspended in Colorado. Together, they have 196 electoral votes counting Colorado, which is 36% of the Electoral College and 73% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force."

Personally, I find this highly alarming, and the fact that it would make up 73% of the votes needed to put a candidate over the top, means this need to be put down...hard. As an aside, another note on Wikipedia related to this: "...Electors are typically required to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, but there is an ongoing legal dispute about whether electors are required to vote as they pledged..."

Think about that. They took a pledge with one side of their mouths, and from the other side, say the pledge means nothing and they should be able to vote as they please. Just like that. Well, this has to be stopped. As well as expanded voting, ballot harvesting, ranked voting, and every other Leftist endeavor to tilt the table in their direction, which is their unstated goal.

[stylin19a]

did this just kill the compact ?

[AU72]

The Constitution gives States exclusive powers on how electoral votes are handled. Remember in 2000 the Florida Legislature was prepared to allocate their electoral votes to George Bush if necessary.

[stylin19a]

you beat me to it...

[rlmorel]

Yes. The “Popular Vote Compact” is the next big crisis as I see it. It needs to be declared unconstitutional.

[Wonder Warthog]

"There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from directing the electors how to vote."

There are NO Federal constitutional restrictions AT ALL on what state legislators can require of their electors. None!

This is totally a state power.

[FewsOrange]

“Yes. The “Popular Vote Compact” is the next big crisis as I see it. It needs to be declared unconstitutional.”

It isn’t unconstitutional. This decision says that the states can tell the electors how to vote. Therefore they can tell the electors to vote for the National Popular Vote winner.

[Publius]

State legislatures have plenary power to determine how electors are apportioned. That includes the National Popular Vote.

The legal and constitutional argument against NPV would be based on Article IV's "republican form of government" clause.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Yes, that “little conspiracy” is floating along, (deliberately) staying below the water level of the news media observations and comments.

[Eleutheria5]

They are hardly the first electors to do so. And it’s up to a state, even if they do vote contrary to their mandate, whether or not to ban, nullify, penalize or ignore the wise guy electors’ choice. It’s not much of a practical difference.

[a fool in paradise]

So electors can’t vote for other candidates but they can deny their party an electoral vote?

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yes, I remember that happening in Florida. The Constitution gives each state the authority to choose electors. The electors don’t have to be chosen by “popular” vote; that aspect of our elections evolved over time so that now all states choose electors by popular vote.

[NittanyLion]

“Yes, as others have opined, it isn’t out of thin air, and this is a good decision, because when November rolls around, there will be the almost unanimous chorus from the left that the electors “do what the founders intended them to do, to vote their conscience, not what the electorate wants them to do”.“

Agree. Of greater concern, if Trump wins, will be the outright intimidation and threats to “cancel” or inflict physical harm on electors from states he won. At least this decision doesn’t enable that behavior, though I don’t expect it will dissuade either.

[Pilgrim's Progress]

>>>The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.<<<

This seems to say to me that if a state is run by democrats, it can choose NOT to prohibit their E.C. reps from disregarding voters.

I’m not sure this is the win that some are claiming.

It seems to leave it up entirely to the states, not the Constitution.

[milagro]

Even so, it does NOT make sense in to allow ONE person’s vote to nullify the results of a Presidential election which is CONSTITUTIONALLY NOT based on the popular vote.

[1Old Pro]

Even the commies were afraid to go there. It would negate even having elections.

Yep, now let's have them rule on the integrity of unsupervised mail in ballot free for alls.

[a fool in paradise]

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?