Supreme Court: States Can Punish ‘Faithless Electors’; Unanimous Decision

Breibart ^ | july 6, 2020 | Joel B. Pollak

[PerConPat]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states may punish “faithless electors” — those members of the Electoral College who refuse to cast their ballots for the candidate whom the majority of voters in the state have chosen.

[PerConPat]

I see this as a pretty clear statement that the Electoral College has no protected rights when it comes to the process of casting votes.

[PerConPat]

Sorry , Mods...I missed the earlier thread. Pleass delete...

[pfflier]

It doesn’t negate a faithless vote only allows punishment for the faithless voter.

[exnavy]

No, it is exactly the opposite, Rush explained it very well today. The electorial college stands as it always has.

[Mr. K]

What are they going to do to ‘punish’ them? Give them a firm talking to?

I’m telling you guys the Democrats will go ALL OUT this year to commit election fraud.

There seems to be no consequences if they get caught, and there certainly won’t be any investigations if the democrats win.

[SunkenCiv]

• Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
• Justices rule states can require presidential electors to back their popular vote winner
• Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College

[Dilbert San Diego]

Can a faithless elector still vote, or will he be replaced?

[SkyDancer]

Like after they vote against the people’s wishes? So they vote then get their hands slapped?

[\/\/ayne]

We wouldn’t need this if not for Democrats trying to cheat the system and bribe, blackmail or intiminate electors.

[jjotto]

Depends on the state. I think states are moving to replacing them.

[griswold3]

SCOTUS allows states to award their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote.
Bye, bye America

[LeoTDB69]

The way I read it, a state would be able to replace an elector who refused to vote according to his promise.

[PerConPat]

Agreed...

[livius]

Theoretically, the electors vote based upon their party’s vote in their district. There has been a big move on the Dem side to get electors to just reject the votes.

[PerConPat]

Didn't catch Rush today...Not sure I understand your "no." I'm pretty sure, based on today's ruling, the SCOTUS would not rule favorably for those who manipulated electors in order to fix or steal a presidential election. And I'm also pretty sure an election manipulated in this fashion would end up at the court.

[PerConPat]

Agree with your comment on Democrats. An election manipulated by faithless electors, IMO, would go to the SCOTUS; and the unanimous decision today does not bode well for manipulators.

[PerConPat]

The SCOTUS made a very strong statement today; and it is a precedent that will likely influence court decisions relating to the tricky business of “faithless electors” for years to come. Supremes after all, eg. Gore vs Bush, can be involved in presidential elections.

[PerConPat]

Interesting...I think today’s unanimous ruling indicates the SCOTUS will not look kindly, in the future, on manipulation of electors when or if it hears cases regarding elections contested for this reason.

[taxcontrol]

So devil in the details question:

An elector is not faithless UNTIL their vote is cast. So does that vote still count? Can a Steat “re-vote” or alter the vote of a faithless elector?

[elbook]

.

Isn’t that ONLY in States where the state’s Electoral College has those rules ??

Or is this the Electors casting for the Majority vote IN THEIR DISTRICT ??

.