Posted on 08/21/2019 2:28:30 PM PDT by mplc51
DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote. It was not immediately clear what effect the ruling might have on the Electoral College system, which is established in the Constitution. Voters in each state choose members of the Electoral College, called electors, who are pledged to a presidential candidate. The electors then choose the president. Most states require electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state, but the Denver appeals court said the states do not have that authority. The Constitution allows electors to cast their votes at their own discretion, the ruling said, “and the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Read the Constitution before making any more stupid remarks on this issue.
However, you do point out an interesting 'wrinkle', in that electors could/can have always voted for the winner of the national popular vote. In fact, technically, electors could/can have ultimately voted for whomever they preferred. That being said, the ultimate fail safe is simple good faith on behalf of electors. And if that fails, individual state legislators of course have practically unlimited power to enforce decisions.
There's something unique about this case that I haven't fully investigated. The judge is clearly not ruling that state legislative bodies cannot control electors - that of course is entirely false. States are sovereign entities free to act as they please within broad federal constitutional guidelines. (If anyone doubts that, check out sanctuary states.) Rather, the opinion apparently is focused on a specific mechanism that in the judge's opinion fails some type of constitutional test.
Apparently you don’t know what a “Republic” is. Unfortunate but not unusual.
Questions:
Does Congress certify the Electoral Vote?
Can they challenge irregularities?
my thoughts, exactly
Which nullifies Colorado’s national popular electoral vote as they cannot mandate the electors choose by popular vote.
They are put on a ballott and you vote for who you want, it is an election, you must do your homework on each one to see who is really going to vote for Trump.That’s how it was in Pa.
That’s almost right.
Your State Legislature has plenary authority to choose electors. All Legislatures have passed laws describing the process they will follow to do the choosing.
It also happens that all 50 Legislatures have chosen to use people voting as the method by which the Legislature does the choosing. This is not required by the Constitution, which has no provision for parties, nominations, conventions. “running”, “calling states”, or any of that other nonsense.
It’s my opinion that all laws which pretend to bind electors are unconstitutional. Once the 535 Electors are chosen, they are (legally) free to choose any eligible person as President. The 3 Electors Congress awarded itself in 1960 may be different.
OPINION: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1173.pdf
Can you tell me about where it addresses the specific fault in Colo. law?
Details do matter LOL! (And we often ignore them.)
I’m for a ‘federalism’ view that States have broad powers when they aren’t contrary to the Constitution, but maybe there is a specific conflict here.
Well, Candidate Trump was ahead in the Popular Vote until the CA results came in. CA , the State with no Voter ID and automatic Voter Registration with every Drivers License they issue.
Oh yeah, the same State that gives Illegal Invaders Drivers Licenses.
Throughout much of our history, the easiest way to get to a majority was via the big states. With big states out of play, smaller states are much more important.
This last and final casting of EC votes also allows electors to correct for a unique instance such as: Hillary wins, but its discovered after the Nov. election that she committed treason and sold secrets to Putin. Electors thankfully flip.
In an instance similar to this treasonous scenario just described, I'd defer to impeachment, rather than to the electors. Electors can be bribed and leave the building, never to be seen. Stakes are high, bribes could be monstrous, so even Republicans could succumb.
Cool, dictatorship. 100% of a vote can got to one person, say a republican, but if the elector is a democrap, she can throw all their votes out and disinfranchise her entire state for who she wants to win!
Individuals have no right to vote for a President, except as their State Legislature allows.
What do you make of this part of Amendment XIV?
Electors can be bought -—for potentially huge sums—and then leave the state.
The Founders intended the electors to have just that kind of discretion.
The decision says, “Article II and the 12th Amendment provide presidential electors the right to cast a vote for president and vice president with discretion. And the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that constitutional right.”
The dissent does not disagree, but says the case is moot. The decision is by Judge Carolyn B. McHugh, an Obama appointee. It is also signed by Judge Jerome Holmes, a Bush Jr. appointee. The dissent is by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, a Clinton appointee.
The case was filed by three Colorado Democratic presidential electors from the 2016 election. One of them, Michael Baca, refused to vote for Hillary Clinton even after the Secretary of State, Wayne Williams, warned him that if he didn’t recant, he would be removed as an elector. The other two plaintiffs had also initially said they would not vote for Hillary Clinton, but then yielded to the demand of the Secretary of State. Their motive was not that they had anything against Hillary Clinton. Instead, they were trying to show the nation that our Constitution gives discretion to presidential electors. The state may have the ability to decide how to choose electors, but it doesn’t follow that the state can then tell them how to vote. It is now quite likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue. Besides this case, there is also the case in the Washington State Supreme Court in which that court ruled 8-1 that electors can be fined for not voting for the expected presidential candidate. That case is already headed for the Supreme Court, with a cert petition due soon. That case is Guerra v Washington, 19A138.
The decision says that only Michael Baca has standing. He is the elector who refused to give in to the Secretary of State. The other two, because they yielded, do not have standing.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Tenth Circuit, and finds that electors do have discretion, it is likely that a constitutional amendment to alter or replace the electoral college will be enacted. Another consequence would be that “sore loser” laws could not be applied to presidential candidates, because it would now be apparent that the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector, not the presidential candidate. And the presidential electors wouldn’t be “sore losers”.
For those who listened to the oral argument in the Tenth Circuit back on January 24, 2019, this outcome is not too surprising. It seemed apparent at the oral argument that there was one vote on each side, with little indication of how the third judge was leaning. Here is a link to the 33-minute oral argument.
If this is in the Constitution, why the hell did a “court” have to make a decision on it? Why was this stupid news article posted at all? Before making any more stupid posts, try to figure out what I was getting at. Why have an election if the electors are going to give there votes to whichever candidate they want to win? It’s not rocket science Chief.
OPINION: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1173.pdf
“Een where an elector violates a state-required pledge to vote for the winners of the state popular election, there is nothing in the federal Constitution that allows the state to remove that elector or to nullify his votes. ..”
Seems pretty clear, and broad, to me.
Under Federalism, I see it oppositely; the States can do what they’re not forbidden to- not what they are allowed to- under the Constitution.
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.