[semantic]

Thanx for the informed posts; it's sometime despairing to witness the lack of constitutional knowledge at forum ostensibly devoted to republican ideals.

First and foremost, we should be mindful that when the constitution was ratified by the states (thus bringing the fed government itself into existence), there wasn't a single presidential election day. Rather, over periods of weeks, the various states, by different methodologies reached agreements on how their state's electors would cast their votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)

By 1792, Federal law permitted each state to choose Presidental electors any time within a 34-day period[2] before the first Wednesday in December.[3] A November election was convenient because the harvest would have been completed but the most severe winter weather, impeding transportation, would not yet have arrived, while the new election results also would roughly conform to a new year. Originally, states varied considerably in the method of choosing electors. Gradually, states converged on selection by some form of popular vote.

Development of the Morse electric telegraph, funded by Congress in 1843 and successfully tested in 1844, was a technological change that clearly augured an imminent future of instant communication nationwide.[4] To prevent information from one state from influencing Presidential electoral outcomes in another, Congress responded in 1845 by mandating a uniform national date for choosing Presidential electors.[1] Congress chose the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to harmonize current electoral practice with the existing 34-day window in Federal law, as the span between Election Day and the first Wednesday in December is always 29 days.[5] The effect is to constrain Election Day to the week between November 2 and November 8 inclusive. Beginning with Presidential elections, gradually all states brought nearly all elections into conformity with this date.

With respect to this court decision, it's simply observing that the chosen method of enforcing elector compliance is unconstitutional; it is silent as to whether states can enforce electors by different methods/means (they can).

Secondly, this opinion does not address the current 'popular vote' compact of states either. That's a separate issue altogether, as it actually violates constitutional guarantees ensuring a republican form of government ie no direct democracy between states. (That in effect is why the compact will ultimately fail as well.)

So, we've come full circle where state appointed electors elect the president. The fail safe is they act in good faith according to political will within the respective state. That in turn is the responsibility of each state legislature, which in turn answer to the constituent power of the people.

[mrsmith]

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.

[mrsmith]

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.