Lynx Defense

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    Texas
    Electoral College: Supreme Court rules states can punish ‘faithless’ electors

    https://www.gopusa.com/?p=91492?omhide=true

    The unanimous 9-0 decision is a victory for states.
    I guess the Dem push for POPULAR VOTE is quashed for the time being?

    QUASHED? Just the opposite.

    This supports states who mandate popular vote and allows them to punish electors who do not follow it.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    Texas
    ?
    Methinks you’re confusing National popular vote, with popular vote within a state.

    Nope. This ruling is the foundation for when electors want to vote they way their state voted, but are forced to vote the way the national vote went.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,425
    96
    Nope. This ruling is the foundation for when electors want to vote they way their state voted, but are forced to vote the way the national vote went.
    It also is the foundation for preventing someone from disregarding the way their state voted.

    Cuts both ways. Some Republican elector decides he does not like Trump and throws his vote to Biden. Can't happen now.

    I am more comfortable with this.
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,315
    96
    south of killeen
    Sure it can happen. All the elector has to do is not signal his intent before the Electoral College votes.
    Yup, it can still happen.
    But now the States can impose severe penalty for those that choose that route. Laws forcing them to vote the will of the people are so one Party, either one, can not buy or convince an unscrupulous delegate to vote against the people. Without that, voting for a person for POTUS would be pointless. Especially since the people as a whole don't vote on who the delegates are.
    What amazes me is that the vote was unanimous.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     

    Dave68

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 4, 2014
    194
    11
    NW Houston
    The specific case was about the electors from Washington and Colorado who cast their electoral vote for Trump even though the majority of the popular vote in these two states Was for Clinton.

    I do NOT think this is a victory for the GOP. The large populations in the big cities will now cement their control in elections.
     
    Last edited:

    Dave68

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 4, 2014
    194
    11
    NW Houston
    Sure it can happen. All the elector has to do is not signal his intent before the Electoral College votes.
    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 in their state.
     
    Last edited:

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 4, 2014
    194
    11
    NW 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
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,425
    96
    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
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    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

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart 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
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    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
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 4, 2014
    194
    11
    NW 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
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,425
    96
    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
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    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
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,108
    Messages
    2,952,940
    Members
    34,935
    Latest member
    LandenR
    Top Bottom