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 ...
“So how does this affect the national popular vote movement”
I would think that would be a different issue for SCOTUS. In that case states are forcing electors to vote against the will of the people in favor of the national popular vote. In this case SCOTUS said forcing electors to vote with the will of the people is ok.
The decision says that States can replace electors that do not vote in line with the will of the people. (If a state votes for Trump, the electors must therefore vote for Trump and if they do not, the electors will be replaced with someone who will.)
To me, this seems to fly in the face of the "National Popular Vote" compact which would take away the will of the people as expressed via their votes.
I’m told objecting to Social Security, Medicare, federal welfare programs, regulation of intrastate commerce, pretending the federal has right to make non-State Actors respect federal civil rights and so many other things because they aren’t constitutional makes me a kook.
The damnable progressives love Arbitrary government. They won’t let us have constitutional governance. It’s their petard ... let us hoist them by it.
Recalling that Dems/Marxists/progressives just HATE free and fair elections.
As I understand it, the ruling will keep Dems from going full-Stalinist rogue in the EC.
There is the issue of a compact not agreed to by Congress.
Moreover, there is no actual certified “national popular vote” that exists as they are all entirely separate elections.
Agree. The fact that the decision was unanimous shows how bad the idea was.
Right. This decision could actually help that movement if SCOTUS means that the electors’ vote is bound by the state legislature and Executive who have passed these laws.
True. Even if Congress agrees to the NPV compact, the lack of a certified NPV is an issue.
Does this ruling do that?
But each party has its slate of electors who commit to voting for a specific candidate. In effect the State is changing the commitment of individual electors. It is important to read the decision to sort that out. Have you read it?
The goal of the Left is to destroy everything that defines the United States by whatever means works. This decision takes away another tool that they intended to use when convenient and when it advances their goal. What is significant about this decision is that it was unanamous and it was based on the original intent of the Constitution.
The Electoral College was invented to protect the rights of the states in Presidental elections. The founders did not want the President to be elected by the people, or the Congress, but by the states. Since neither the internet or telegraph did not exist, the only mechanism available was for the states to select electors, have them vote as directed by the state and then send that result to the seat of the Federal Government. Faithless electors could not be tolerated if the elections were to conform to the Constitution. The Supreme Court just protected our election system.
The National Popular Vote movement is the next threat and the Supreme Court has signaled that they intend to strike that down if adopted. The reason is simple, the change of the Electoral College system can only be done by amending the Constitution and that will not happen. The proposed compact is the work around and the only way to achieve their goal. Fortunately for us, it is Unconstitutional.
Of course, they have a backup plan. Ballot harvesting will destroy fair elections and will provide the Left with a Soviet Union style election where the outcome is predetermined by those in power. Once they win an election through ballot harvesting, we will have seen our last election. That has already happened in California, they won’t stop there.
If the thrust of the opinion as to the effect that the Constitution awards the states unfettered prerogative to control their electors, this could be a very very dangerous opinion for us. A growing number of states will simply require electors to vote the national consensus, and the geography of the electoral college will give Democrats the advantage.
If the opinion is limited in that it acknowledges a constitutional power in the states to only control faithless electors, the opinion is benign.
It should be determined by Congress if States can make compacts, but with the split Houses, it probably would not be determined. It is even in the Constitution, that it is up to Congress whether or not Compacts can be formed by some or all States.
The National Popular Vote Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that has been used for over 200 years in the 18 states that do not have laws requiring presidential electors to vote a certain way. In these 18 states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are nominated (in various ways -- typically by a party conventions at the district or state level) by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes inside the state. The National Popular Vote Compact would operate in the same way, except the presidential electors would be the persons nominated by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
That is the Left's argument and why the Compact was designed the way it is. But, it is still Unconstitutional. Compacts between states in Unconstitutional unless approved by the Congress and so if the Compact is triggered when the number of states required to meet the 270 electoral vote requirement, it cannot go into force without approval of the Congress. Of course, if the Democrats control both houses of Congress, they could approve it and elections would end as we know it. Senators would need to vote in the interest of the nation and their states and we know that the Democrat Senators will never do that.
Washington state electors. I’m surprised it’s unanimous.
Baca of Col. was also announced
Look for Chiafalo pdf
“But each party has its slate of electors who commit to voting for a specific candidate. In effect the State is changing the commitment of individual electors. It is important to read the decision to sort that out. Have you read it?”
In the case of the national popular vote, the state legislator would be forcing electors to vote against the will of the people, effectively disconnecting the voters from their electors. That could easily be viewed by SCOTUS as conflicting with section 2 of the 14th amendment. Completely different issue. When states force electors to vote with the will of the people, there’s no conflict with the 14th amendment.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.
Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.
10th Amendment for the win.
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.