[Political Junkie Too]

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.

I have been an early opponent of this decision.

It is my belief that states can control the METHOD of selecting electors, but once chosen those electors have free will to vote their conscience. As an analogy, prior to the 17th amendment, legislatures had control of the METHOD of choosing Senators, but they could not control how those Senators voted in Congress.

Furthermore, the 12th amendment says:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President... and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The 12th amendment makes it clear that it is too late for a state to take corrective actions against a faithless elector once those sealed ballots are opened in Congress and counted. The vote of the elector will have already happened. The state cannot change the vote; they can only change the elector to one who will vote differently, but that will be too late since the original elector has already voted and been counted in Congress by the time the faithlessness is discovered.

In effect, this ruling by the Supreme Court nullifies the 12th amendment procedure for counting electors' sealed ballots.

-PJ

[nathanbedford]

I agree with your views and I have said so:

Not having read the opinion, I can comment from sublime ignorance.

It seems to me the purpose of the electoral College is to interpose the will of that college between the mob and the office of the President of the United States. To declare that that discretion may be removed from electors, presumably elected because of their reputation for discretion, is to pervert the purpose of the electoral college which is to provide a check on democracy.

Similarly, a holding that says that a state may require a pledge of an Elector, now apparently justification for enforcing control over the Elector, is contrary to the purpose of the Framers.

Any reference in the opinion justifying itself because it furthers a democratic vote, written by extreme leftist Elena Kagan, betrays a contrary understanding from framers.

… I am in the midst of Thomas' dissent right now

[campaignPete R-CT]

No. Baca in COL voted for Kasich. He was immediately removed and an alternate took his place.

[nathanbedford]

Justice Thomas in his opinion, concurring only in the judgment but not in the reasoning of the majority, does a good job of exposing the shallowness of the majority opinion. I believe the majority opinion was motivated by a desire to extend democracy so it resorted to backwards reasoning to get to the desired result. In other words, the majority in its neo-modern fixation to get ahead of history, responds not to the Constitution but to a more "modern and enlightened" philosophy.

It is also not clear to me that Justice Thomas is right in saying that the power to control electors' votes reverts to the states under Amendment 10. I believe this power was justly granted, as you say, to the states to prescribe the manner of the electors getting office, but does not grant the states the power to control them once in office. Your recital of the procedural steps in counting the balance of the electors is very persuasive that the framers could not have contemplated the interposition of state rule over the electors' votes.

The reservation to the states of those rights not delegated to the federal government would speak only if the framers had no intention to fix the power in electors to vote their conscience. Once delegated, the 10th Amendment does not speak. To say that it was not delegated seems to me to be a stretch given the procedural steps and, more importantly and more persuasively, given the Framers' felt need to insulate government from the rages of the mob. In other words, to justify depriving electors of their free vote because it reflects the desire of the majority, is expressly opposite to the very purpose of their existence.

To this extent, I disagree with Justice Thomas.

[campaignPete R-CT]

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.

[lepton]

too late for a state to take corrective actions against a faithless elector once those sealed ballots are opened in Congress and counted.

---

That would not prohibit a state from taking actions before the ballot results are sealed, as that vote takes place at the state.