Colorado Rigging Next Election

[BULLDOG]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

You're missing the part that he thought was in there.

 

[OKTexas]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

We don't believe there were fake votes for Trump. We just know that thousands of African Americans were prevented from voting in certain states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, that's all. It's called voter suppression. Look it up.

That's rich. The only thing that prevented African Americans from voting for Hillary was Hillary. The "voter suppression" was on the DNC for nominating a candidate that woefully failed to resonate with African Americans, leading to dreadful African American voter turnout.

Wapo: 4.4 million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016 — more than a third of them black

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

Really? Explain how a state can make changes to how that state's Electoral College votes are determined and not violate the Constitution. I'm all ears!

Because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that a state must award its EC votes based on who wins the state's popular vote. There may be state laws that direct how EC votes are allocated, but there is nothing in the Constitution about this. And state laws can be changed, as Colorado just illustrated.

It's all about them states' rights, ain't it Repubs?

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

We don't believe there were fake votes for Trump. We just know that thousands of African Americans were prevented from voting in certain states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, that's all. It's called voter suppression. Look it up.

That's rich. The only thing that prevented African Americans from voting for Hillary was Hillary. The "voter suppression" was on the DNC for nominating a candidate that woefully failed to resonate with African Americans.

Wrong. Thousands of blacks in the Milwaukee area were prevented from voting in 2016, thanks to governor Scott Walker's draconian voter suppression law. Clinton would have won Wisconsin by at least a couple of percentage points if it wasn't for this new voter suppression law.

 

[BULLDOG]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

??? There is nothing in this phrase about the electoral college or voting. You are dead wrong.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

It's amazing how easily these commie States are willing to surrender their own sovereignty, and their citizens allow it. Anything for power I guess, fuck your State and country.

.

State sovereignty mostly went away, thanks to the Civil War. And that's a good thing.

Yeah, your dear leader found out differently in the many times the supremes bitch slapped him.

.

You mean like the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

You would have to prove that two states were conspiring to cast their EC votes a certain way. Regardless, this clause has NOTHING to do with the EC or voting. That's a total stretch and wishful thinking on your part and it would not stand up in court.

 

[Oddball]

Oh look, it's a sock fight!

 

[OKTexas]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

Did you bother to read the OP?

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

.

 

[OKTexas]

Democrats are a bunch of criminals.
They fully intend on stealing the next presidential election by passing laws that assure that regardless how their state votes, they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the popular vote.
This goes directly against the constitution and is an assault on the election process.

All Democrats have to do is generate enough fake votes in Blue States using illegal voters...and then Colorado would award their electoral votes to the fake winner.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Colorado Open Records Act lawsuit on behalf of reporter Todd Shepherd against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for records of communications related to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award Colorado’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of whether Colorado’s voters chose that candidate (Todd Shepherd v Jena Griswold in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State (No. 2019-cv-032310)).

The suit was filed after Griswold refused to turn over certain documents in response to a February 4, 2019, open records request for records about the Electoral College debate.

On February 21, 2019, the Colorado House passed the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to Governor Jared Polis. Colorado Secretary of State Griswold is a critic of the Electoral College and applauded Gov. Polis’s signing of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Currently, most states award all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. But, as described here by the National Conference of State Legislatures, when a state, such as Colorado, “passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact.”

Five times a presidential candidate has won the “popular vote” but lost the election, most recently Hillary Clinton. Many opponents of President Trump have proposed undoing the Electoral College. Supporters of the Electoral College point out that it balances the interests of citizens in both large and small states by requiring candidates to seek votes in less populous states whose interests might otherwise be ignored. In addition, under the reform, a state could award its Electoral College votes to a presidential candidate who lost the state’s popular vote.

Judicial Watch Sues Colorado for Documents on Electoral College Change, Files Suit on Behalf of Reporter Over State’s New National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Judicial Watch​

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

??? There is nothing in this phrase about the electoral college or voting. You are dead wrong.

Wrong again commie, any interstate compact requires the consent of congress. Good luck with that.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It's amazing how easily these commie States are willing to surrender their own sovereignty, and their citizens allow it. Anything for power I guess, fuck your State and country.

.

State sovereignty mostly went away, thanks to the Civil War. And that's a good thing.

Yeah, your dear leader found out differently in the many times the supremes bitch slapped him.

.

You mean like the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

Recent, no, the original one.

.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

You are not correct. There is a long line of Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting the Interstate Compacts clause, and while I don't have time to pull the citations and the relevant language from the decisions, long story short, the high court has found agreements to be in violation of the clause where it has the effect of consolidating power, including political influence, in such a way as to diminish or impede upon the rights of other states that are not parties to the agreement. While this particular agreement has not come before the court (obviously), there are a number of decisions that involve circumstances that are analogous enough to conclude that the Supreme Court would find the NPVA to be in violation of the Constitution. And I don't think it would even be a close decision. I will create a thread on this when I have the time to pull the cases and write it up.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

It's amazing how easily these commie States are willing to surrender their own sovereignty, and their citizens allow it. Anything for power I guess, fuck your State and country.

.

State sovereignty mostly went away, thanks to the Civil War. And that's a good thing.

Yeah, your dear leader found out differently in the many times the supremes bitch slapped him.

.

You mean like the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

Recent, no, the original one.

.

Yep, after Moscow Mitch and the Repugs stole a Supreme Court seat that rightfully belonged to Obama in an egregious, unprecedented move that never occurred before in this country's history. No coincidence there.

And, of course, you anti-democratic Repugs were outraged by that power grab.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

??? There is nothing in this phrase about the electoral college or voting. You are dead wrong.

Wrong again commie, any interstate compact requires the consent of congress. Good luck with that.

.

It's not a compact, dummy. That's where you fall flat on your face. You've got nothing and you know it.

 

[BULLDOG]

This doesn't go against the Constitution at all. That is wishful thinking on your part. You will have a very difficult time proving that it does go against the Constitution. Bravo, Colorado.

Let's face it - The only hope that Repubs have of winning another Presidential election is the Electoral College. Repubs will NEVER win the popular vote in a Presidential election again, at least not during the next 20 - 30 years.

Not without Russia's help, anyway.

You might want to read Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. While you're at it, you might want to read the rest of the document as well, you appear to be really ignorant about it.

.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what am I missing?

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

That.

.

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

Did you bother to read the OP?

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

.

The term "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" is a term coined by Judicial Watch and doesn't appear anywhere in the Colorado law. You're making up terms, and then complaining about them. So childish of you.

 

[Picaro]

So how, exactly, was 'The African American Vote' suppressed? What a load of rubbish.

 

[OKTexas]

It's amazing how easily these commie States are willing to surrender their own sovereignty, and their citizens allow it. Anything for power I guess, fuck your State and country.

.

State sovereignty mostly went away, thanks to the Civil War. And that's a good thing.

Yeah, your dear leader found out differently in the many times the supremes bitch slapped him.

.

You mean like the recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

Recent, no, the original one.

.

Yep, after Moscow Mitch and the Repugs stole a Supreme Court seat that rightfully belonged to Obama in an egregious, unprecedented move that never occurred before in this country's history. No coincidence there.

And, of course, you anti-democratic Repugs were outraged by that power grab.

OMG, you're not only boring and ignorant, you're redundant in the process, that's a sure sign of a low IQ. Mtich was just following the Biden rule. LMAO

.

 

[Moscow Mitch McTraitor]

What Agreement do you think they are entering into? Their decision is just for their state, and is not binding on any other state, just as no other state has any binding agreements on them.

You are not correct. There is a long line of Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting the Interstate Compacts clause, and while I don't have time to pull the citations and the relevant language from the decisions, long story short, the high court has found agreements to be in violation of the clause where it has the effect of consolidating power, including political influence, in such a way as to diminish or impede upon the rights of other states that are not parties to the agreement. While this particular agreement has not come before the court (obviously), there are a number of decisions that involve circumstances that are analogous enough to conclude that the Supreme Court would find the NPVA to be in violation of the Constitution. And I don't think it would even be a close decision. I will create a thread on this when I have the time to pull the cases and write it up.

Except it's not impeding on the rights of the other states. You would have to prove that this is somehow impeding the rights of states that are not part of this clause. It's not, since those other states can continue to vote as they see fit.

Of course, the Republican Supreme Court would look for the flimsiest reason to shoot this down. No one is pretending that the Supreme Court is impartial anymore.