Leroy N. Soetoro
2020-01-18 21:13:00 UTC
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/faithless-elector-supreme-
court-will-hear-case-could-change-how-n1113051
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up an issue that
could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its
president, with a decision likely in the spring just as the campaign heats
up.
The answer to the question could be a decisive one: Are the electors who
cast the actual Electoral College ballots for president and vice president
required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states? Or are
they free to vote as they wish?
A decision that they are free agents could give a single elector, or a
small group of them, the power to decide the outcome of a presidential
election if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie
or is close.
"It's not hard to imagine how a single 'faithless elector,' voting
differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential
election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.
America has never chosen its president by direct popular vote. Instead,
when voters go to the polls in November, they actually vote for a slate of
electors chosen by the political parties of the presidential candidates.
Those electors then meet in December, after the November election, to cast
their ballots, which are counted before a joint session of Congress in
January.
More than half the states have laws requiring electors to obey the results
of the popular vote in their states and cast their ballots accordingly.
The problem of what are known as "faithless electors" has not been much of
an issue in American political history, because when an elector refuses to
follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state usually simply
throws the ballot away.
The cases before the Supreme Court involve faithless electors during the
2016 presidential election. Instead of voting for Hillary Clinton, who won
the popular vote in Colorado, Michael Baca cast his vote for John Kasich,
the former Republican governor of Ohio. And in Washington state, where
Clinton also won the popular vote, three of the state's 12 electors voted
for Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, instead of Clinton.
Colorado threw Baca's vote out and found another elector to vote for
Clinton. Washington accepted the votes of its rebel electors but fined
them for violating state law. The electors challenged the fines, but the
Washington state Supreme Court upheld the state law requiring them to
conform to the popular vote.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver reached a different
conclusion, however. It said electors can vote for any legitimate
candidate.
Jena Griswold, Colorado's Secretary of State, praised the Supreme Court's
decision to hear the case."
"Unelected and unaccountable presidential electors should not be allowed
to decide the presidential election without regard to voters' choices and
state law," Griswold said.
States are free to choose their electors however they want, the court
said, and can even require electors to pledge their loyalty to their
political parties. But once the electors are chosen and report in December
to cast their votes as members of the electoral college, they are
fulfilling a federal function, and a state's authority has ended.
"The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to
remove them or nullify their votes," the court said.
Because the Constitution contains no requirement for electors to follow
the wishes of a political party, "the electors, once appointed, are free
to vote as they choose," assuming that they cast their vote for a legally
qualified candidate.
The lawyers representing Colorado and the electors from both states urged
the Supreme Court to resolve the question now, instead of waiting for a
crisis that could come if a renegade elector's defection threatened to
affect the outcome of an election.
But the states and the electors disagreed on how the court should rule.
Colorado's legal brief said that because the Constitution gives the states
broad powers to decide how electors are appointed, it also authorizes the
states to attach conditions to how they must vote.
"The American people choose the president while electors are mere agents
who cast their Electoral College ballots according to the will of their
constituents, not the reverse. The court of appeals decision upsets over
two centuries of practice covering all previous presidential elections,"
Colorado said.
The lawyers for the electors, however, said tradition is not the same as
the law.
"The structure of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court over our
230-year history, prohibits the states from interfering with the exercise
of this plainly federal function," said Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law
professor involved in both cases.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the
Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by
the popular vote. But the justices have never said whether it is
constitutional to enforce those pledges.
"The Electoral College is unbelievably important to the mechanics of how
we select a president, but it's almost a mystery. The Supreme Court has
told us virtually nothing about it, and certainly, this Supreme Court
hasn't said anything," said Tom Goldstein, a Supreme Court expert who co-
founded the website SCOTUSBlog and argues frequently before the court.
The court will hear the issue in the spring and decide the case by late
June.
--
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party ran out of gas and got run over by a Trump
truck.
Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for cleaning up the disaster
of the Obama presidency.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump has boosted the economy, reduced illegal immigration,
appointed dozens of judges and created jobs.
Sore loser and NAMBLA supporter Nancy Pelosi just pulled the "Obamacare
switcheroo" on "trumped up" impeachment charges.
court-will-hear-case-could-change-how-n1113051
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up an issue that
could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its
president, with a decision likely in the spring just as the campaign heats
up.
The answer to the question could be a decisive one: Are the electors who
cast the actual Electoral College ballots for president and vice president
required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states? Or are
they free to vote as they wish?
A decision that they are free agents could give a single elector, or a
small group of them, the power to decide the outcome of a presidential
election if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie
or is close.
"It's not hard to imagine how a single 'faithless elector,' voting
differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential
election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.
America has never chosen its president by direct popular vote. Instead,
when voters go to the polls in November, they actually vote for a slate of
electors chosen by the political parties of the presidential candidates.
Those electors then meet in December, after the November election, to cast
their ballots, which are counted before a joint session of Congress in
January.
More than half the states have laws requiring electors to obey the results
of the popular vote in their states and cast their ballots accordingly.
The problem of what are known as "faithless electors" has not been much of
an issue in American political history, because when an elector refuses to
follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state usually simply
throws the ballot away.
The cases before the Supreme Court involve faithless electors during the
2016 presidential election. Instead of voting for Hillary Clinton, who won
the popular vote in Colorado, Michael Baca cast his vote for John Kasich,
the former Republican governor of Ohio. And in Washington state, where
Clinton also won the popular vote, three of the state's 12 electors voted
for Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, instead of Clinton.
Colorado threw Baca's vote out and found another elector to vote for
Clinton. Washington accepted the votes of its rebel electors but fined
them for violating state law. The electors challenged the fines, but the
Washington state Supreme Court upheld the state law requiring them to
conform to the popular vote.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver reached a different
conclusion, however. It said electors can vote for any legitimate
candidate.
Jena Griswold, Colorado's Secretary of State, praised the Supreme Court's
decision to hear the case."
"Unelected and unaccountable presidential electors should not be allowed
to decide the presidential election without regard to voters' choices and
state law," Griswold said.
States are free to choose their electors however they want, the court
said, and can even require electors to pledge their loyalty to their
political parties. But once the electors are chosen and report in December
to cast their votes as members of the electoral college, they are
fulfilling a federal function, and a state's authority has ended.
"The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to
remove them or nullify their votes," the court said.
Because the Constitution contains no requirement for electors to follow
the wishes of a political party, "the electors, once appointed, are free
to vote as they choose," assuming that they cast their vote for a legally
qualified candidate.
The lawyers representing Colorado and the electors from both states urged
the Supreme Court to resolve the question now, instead of waiting for a
crisis that could come if a renegade elector's defection threatened to
affect the outcome of an election.
But the states and the electors disagreed on how the court should rule.
Colorado's legal brief said that because the Constitution gives the states
broad powers to decide how electors are appointed, it also authorizes the
states to attach conditions to how they must vote.
"The American people choose the president while electors are mere agents
who cast their Electoral College ballots according to the will of their
constituents, not the reverse. The court of appeals decision upsets over
two centuries of practice covering all previous presidential elections,"
Colorado said.
The lawyers for the electors, however, said tradition is not the same as
the law.
"The structure of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court over our
230-year history, prohibits the states from interfering with the exercise
of this plainly federal function," said Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law
professor involved in both cases.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the
Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by
the popular vote. But the justices have never said whether it is
constitutional to enforce those pledges.
"The Electoral College is unbelievably important to the mechanics of how
we select a president, but it's almost a mystery. The Supreme Court has
told us virtually nothing about it, and certainly, this Supreme Court
hasn't said anything," said Tom Goldstein, a Supreme Court expert who co-
founded the website SCOTUSBlog and argues frequently before the court.
The court will hear the issue in the spring and decide the case by late
June.
--
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party ran out of gas and got run over by a Trump
truck.
Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for cleaning up the disaster
of the Obama presidency.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump has boosted the economy, reduced illegal immigration,
appointed dozens of judges and created jobs.
Sore loser and NAMBLA supporter Nancy Pelosi just pulled the "Obamacare
switcheroo" on "trumped up" impeachment charges.