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 ...
Can I print this on a tshirt?
I wish I was young enough to walk and visit rural houses and get them to get out and vote
In the presidential election, one does not vote for a president. the vote is for electoral college electors pledged to vote for a specific candidate
At least that is the way ballots read here
Well when you make it this far up north, don’t shoot the fat Italian guy eating a hero and watching a B horror movie.
Per Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Per Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Yes, I do remember that.
“want to hasten the arrival of a second civil war?? here’s how you will do it...”
Yes, it will.
Each party posts a slate of Electors, mostly relatively unknowns, although their names are public.
This is a nothing decision, there have always been so-called “Faithless Electors”; Trump had 2 R Electors not vote for him in 2016, and Hillary had 5 Faithless Electors.
Of course, this still benefits the D’s by not outlawing Faithless Electors, and despite the 2016 results of the R’s ‘winning’ the Faithless Elector battle 2 to 5; historically, there are more RINO’s than Blue-Dog Democrats who would be willing to not vote for their party’s nominee.
Those are one-and-done situations. Once you are a Faithless Elector, your party will never put you on a future slate of Electors.
Post/comments BUMP!
It’s called a hoagie
It is the way the system was designed to work.
Electoral College members are there to do a job and not steal elections
Actually as I remember my CIVICS (from back when they taught it in the 1950s) the electoral college is the last line of defense. They are not bound by anything but their own conscious.
(Of course I am old and I may be wrong but the Courts just confirms what I understood to be the situation)
That’s a win baby!
This invalidates all the state laws that say their votes go to the popular vote winner.
The “court” cannot decide this.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,a Number of Electors”
And that language does not allow the states to force the electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to?
Insanity. No, it is an Obama acolyte.
This is hardly new.
Recall the election of “Ruthefraud Hayes” in the compromise of 1876.
I think that has been the case previously.
You are absolutely correct.
Yes, it has always been the case.
Well, the Dems who gave passed state laws forcing their electors to cast a vote for the nation wide overall vote winner may not like this?
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.