Electoral College: Supreme Court rules states can punish ‘faithless’ electors

Renegade

SuperOwner
Mar 5, 2008
8,100
113
Texas
The ruling allows states to negate the vote of the elector if the elector does not cast their vote for the candidate who carried a majority of the popular vote.
That is not what SCOTUS BLOG says.

The issue of overturning a vote that has been cast was not before the court.

It says they upheld the right to fine someone after the fact in the Washington case and in the Colorado case they upheld the faithless elector law.

In both these cases the electors in question signaled their intent beforehand.
 

Dave68

Member
Sep 4, 2014
143
28
Houston
That is not what SCOTUS BLOG says.

The issue of overturning a vote that has been cast was not before the court.

It says they upheld the right to fine someone after the fact in the Washington case and in the Colorado case they upheld the faithless elector law.

In both these cases the electors in question signaled their intent beforehand.
The justices also reversed a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Colorado’s cancellation of a faithless elector’s vote. Sort of a double negative here. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold claims that the ruling makes clear that states can invalidate any ballot by an elector who goes against the popular vote.
 
Last edited:

oldag

TGT Addict
Feb 19, 2015
8,925
113
Sure it can happen. All the elector has to do is not signal his intent before the Electoral College votes.
"A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that presidential electors can be required to cast ballots for the candidate who wins their state’s popular vote, reducing any Electoral College uncertainty as the U.S. heads toward a contentious election in November."
 

Renegade

SuperOwner
Mar 5, 2008
8,100
113
Texas
The justices also reversed a ruling by the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Colorado’s cancellation of a faithless elector’s vote.
<Nevermind, missed the double negative.>

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the ruling makes clear that states can invalidate any ballot by an elector who goes against the popular vote.
She can claim anything she wants. The only thing clear in the ruling is what they actually wrote.
 

Axxe55

Professional Troublemaker
Dec 15, 2019
5,640
113
Texas.
Here's something to consider. Does anyone think Biden is going to be more popular in November, than Hillary was in 2016 against Trump?

Personally, I think Biden hasn't got a chance regardless of whether it's the national popular vote, or the Electoral Vote.

The only way Biden could win is if the election is rigged, or compromised. I'm fairly sure that is being looked at as we speak.
 

Renegade

SuperOwner
Mar 5, 2008
8,100
113
Texas
"A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that presidential electors can be required to cast ballots for the candidate who wins their state’s popular vote, reducing any Electoral College uncertainty as the U.S. heads toward a contentious election in November."
Correct, they can require it.

So Washington States $1000 fine is ruled Constitutional, and three votes that did not go to Clinton stand.
 

Renegade

SuperOwner
Mar 5, 2008
8,100
113
Texas
Here's something to consider. Does anyone think Biden is going to be more popular in November, than Hillary was in 2016 against Trump?

Personally, I think Biden hasn't got a chance regardless of whether it's the national popular vote, or the Electoral Vote.

The only way Biden could win is if the election is rigged, or compromised. I'm fairly sure that is being looked at as we speak.
Lefties will vote for anyone not Trump. He will get more votes than Clinton did. We have to get more than that.
 

Dave68

Member
Sep 4, 2014
143
28
Houston
The double negative made it confusing. I had to reread the thing 7 times to figure out what SCOTUS decided.

My question is what the definition of a majority is. Is a majority 50.1% of the popular vote in the state? Or is a majority defined as the candidate who got more votes than any other candidate? I guess this would be specified in the rules of each state.
 

oldag

TGT Addict
Feb 19, 2015
8,925
113
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the Court, they “did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page.” The Constitution’s Article II gives states authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” and that implies the power to require binding pledges.

This decision doesn’t address the most controversial question about the Electoral College, which is whether the U.S. should have one at all. A growing number of Democratic states are signing on to an anti-Electoral College initiative under which they would grant their electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Because the Chiafalo decision affirms the authority of states to apportion electors, it doesn’t invalidate that effort.

Yet as Justice Thomas notes, the Constitution also contains “a brief list of powers removed from the States.” Among those is the ability to enter into interstate compacts without the consent of Congress. If the national-popular vote initiative gets enough signatories to do an end-run around the Electoral College, expect the interstate compact clause to be front and center in a challenge before the Supreme Court. And unlike Chiafalo, don’t expect that decision to be unanimous.
 

Renegade

SuperOwner
Mar 5, 2008
8,100
113
Texas
This decision doesn’t address the most controversial question about the Electoral College, which is whether the U.S. should have one at all.
And it never should, as it is Constitutionally mandated.

A growing number of Democratic states are signing on to an anti-Electoral College initiative under which they would grant their electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.
An epic shitstorm will result when a Democratic state has to vote against its own popular vote, for a Republican.

Yet as Justice Thomas notes, the Constitution also contains “a brief list of powers removed from the States.” Among those is the ability to enter into interstate compacts without the consent of Congress. If the national-popular vote initiative gets enough signatories to do an end-run around the Electoral College, expect the interstate compact clause to be front and center in a challenge before the Supreme Court.
Seems Thomas is already signaling in his mind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is already DOA. Expect calls for him to recuse if it ever gets to the court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
 
Top