SCOTUS: No faithless electors
-
https://apnews.com/a398c3e7c8d2c4a1b9ad498ed5f86ed7
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway.
So-called faithless electors have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”
The justices had scheduled arguments for the spring so they could resolve the issue before the election, rather than amid a potential political crisis after the country votes.
When the court heard arguments by telephone in May because of the coronavirus outbreak, justices invoked fears of bribery and chaos if electors could cast their ballots regardless of the popular vote outcome in their states.
The issue arose in lawsuits filed by three Hillary Clinton electors in Washington state and one in Colorado who refused to vote for her despite her popular vote win in both states. In so doing, they hoped to persuade enough electors in states won by Donald Trump to choose someone else and deny Trump the presidency.
The federal appeals court in Denver ruled that electors can vote as they please, rejecting arguments that they must choose the popular-vote winner. In Washington, the state Supreme Court upheld a $1,000 fine against the three electors and rejected their claims.
In all, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016, including a fourth in Washington, a Democratic elector in Hawaii and two Republican electors in Texas. In addition, Democratic electors who said they would not vote for Clinton were replaced in Maine and Minnesota.>
-
To me, the decision makes sense.
-
I can imagine a scenario where you would want to allow the electors to change their vote.
If the president-elect became sick or dead you might want to change. Back when it took several days to get a message across the country you might want to let electors change.
These days it is probably less important.
-
-
No, someone who was known to have abdicated their duty to the voters would be considered a pariah by all the voters for the other side and I daresay most of the voters for the side they favored. You can be forgiven for disagreeing though, considering the White House adults in the room who bragged to the whole country via NYT op ed and a published book that they were subverting the President's intentions, and the left's almost unanimous cheering.
-
@George-K said in SCOTUS: No faithless electors:
The issue arose in lawsuits filed by three Hillary Clinton electors in Washington state and one in Colorado who refused to vote for her despite her popular vote win in both states. In so doing, they hoped to persuade enough electors in states won by Donald Trump to choose someone else and deny Trump the presidency.
I just now read the whole story. Yes, not surprisingly, the issue is one of righteousness, by left-leaning folk. While the left fantasizes about pro-Trump electors stealing the election in 2020, their side already tried to steal the election through those means in 2016.
