flyangler

SCOTUS Rules on "Faithless Electors" - What does this mean?

Rate this topic

18 posts in this topic

Did the SC just kill the Popular Vote Compact? 
 

I am not certain as the ruling seems to say that states CAN force electors to vote inline with the state's popular vote, not that they HAVE to.
 

Popular Vote Compact state legislatures have voted so that their electors can vote with the national popular vote, the heck with the state's voters' preference. I am not sure this is the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNBC: States can force Electoral College voters to abide by popular vote, Supreme Court says

  • States can require Electoral College voters to back the victor of their state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday, in a major dispute that could have an impact on November’s presidential contest. 
  • Two cases were brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to back Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, despite her wins in those states. 
  • Like most states, Washington and Colorado have laws that require electors to vote for their pledged candidate. The electors argued that the enforcement of those laws was unconstitutional. 
States can require Electoral College voters to back the victor of their state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday, in a major dispute that could have an impact on November’s presidential contest. 

Two cases were brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to back Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, despite her wins in those states. 

Like most states, Washington and Colorado have laws that require electors to vote for their pledged candidate. The electors argued that the enforcement of those laws was unconstitutional. 

Micheal Baca, the Colorado elector, was replaced before he could cast his vote for former Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Three Washington electors were hit with $1,000 fines after voting for former Secretary of State Colin Powell. 

Lower courts divided on the issue, with courts in Colorado and Washington ultimately coming down on opposite sides. The federal appeals court in Colorado sided with Baca, while the Washington Supreme Court sided with the state and upheld the fines. 

While “faithless electors” have never affected the outcome of a presidential race, such an outcome was plausible in a future contest, attorneys for the electors told the justices. Larry Lessig, an attorney for the Washington electors, said in court papers that a swing of just 10 electors would have been enough to alter the results of five previous presidential races. 

For that reason, they asked the top court to resolve the matter ahead of the November election between President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, the former vice president. 

The Washington case is Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465. The Colorado case is Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who do you feel this benefits?  Me, I see a conservative electoral voter staying with the program and voting along the state popular votes.  I can easily see a liberal going against the popular vote cause they are so scary smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s really a state issue, and that’s exactly what the SCOTUS ruling seems to support.   I see no problem with the people of the state directing an elector to vote as they have been instructed by the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, Nessmuk said:

It’s really a state issue, and that’s exactly what the SCOTUS ruling seems to support.   I see no problem with the people of the state directing an elector to vote as they have been instructed by the people.

But what about the state legislature voting so that the state's electors HAVE to vote in accordance with the national popular vote, irrespective of the state's own PV? 
 

That is what the liberals are doing with the Popular Vote Compact seeking to deny another case where the Dem wins the 50-State PV but loses the EC vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 mins ago, tomkaz said:

But what about the state legislature voting so that the state's electors HAVE to vote in accordance with the national popular vote, irrespective of the state's own PV? 
 

That is what the liberals are doing with the Popular Vote Compact seeking to deny another case where the Dem wins the 50-State PV but loses the EC vote. 


The state governments should NOT be able to force the electors to vote against the majority of the population that elected them.  Ever.  The nation is a republic, and there are solid, historical reasons for that, but it’s electors should be chosen by the people of each state.

 

That said, it’s an issue for the people of the state to decide, by referendum.  I totally oppose politicians determining who electors vote for.  I prefer electors vote proportionally IAW the popular vote in their state.  I can tolerate a requirement that the state has a “winner gets all” rule if the people choose that by referendum.

 

During those decisions, I believe wise people should consider the advisability of a tyrannical majority, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tomkaz said:

the national popular vote,

I don;t think this ruling involves that. Whole other subject.

 

In fact. I will be laughing my ass off when Trump wins the nationwide popular vote and blue states like mine will HAVE to cast their electoral ballots for him....      :laugh:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand this is, the states can bind those electors to vote the way the state popular vote goes.  They become mearly cerimonial bearers of the state's votes to the Electoral College and can't change anything.  I think this is a very good thing and I'm happy to see the SC come together on this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 mins ago, Steve in Mass said:

I don;t think this ruling involves that. Whole other subject.

 

In fact. I will be laughing my ass off when Trump wins the nationwide popular vote and blue states like mine will HAVE to cast their electoral ballots for him....      :laugh:

 

 

 

Steve, that Popular Vote compact hasn't taken affect yet... think they need enough states worth 270 electors to sign on before it supposedly does... 

but when that happens, Blue states will figure out a way not to abide by it if an R candidate wins... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Here is the tyranny of a mindless mob in action, burning, looting, wanton destruction, and murder. 

 

Franklin, Adams et al saw this coming and builtin what they thought were safeguards to ensure the survival of a Republic for all - these United States, not just for the cities of larger population.

 

The Storming of the Bastille.

 

Storming-of-the-Bastille-July-14-1789.jp

 

 

Edited by zybathegeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve in Mass said:

I don;t think this ruling involves that. Whole other subject.

 

In fact. I will be laughing my ass off when Trump wins the nationwide popular vote and blue states like mine will HAVE to cast their electoral ballots for him....      :laugh:

 

 

 

I don't think a Republican will win the popular vote with California importing illegal aliens and mailing each other boxes of votes. In 2016 the 49 states of America gave the popular vote to Trump by a 2 million vote margin but he lost it by 1.7 million votes when the Republik of Kollifornia was counted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the illegals ,the mail in ballots ,instead of 50 polling places they only put up 30 under the guise of mail in ballots and the possibility of terrorist attacks plus the mud slinging campaigns the American public will be privy to one hell of a election  s h t show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tomkaz said:

States can require Electoral College voters to back the victor of their state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday,

state pop vote, not federal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tomkaz said:

But what about the state legislature voting so that the state's electors HAVE to vote in accordance with the national popular vote, irrespective of the state's own PV? 

 

thats not what the SC was addressing here, as I read it.

 

I like this ruling.  What you said?  Not so much.  Not in the least.  Even a little.  

 

We arent and never were a straight democracy, and for very good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.