Supremes Hold Electors To Pledge

I think it would be an unconstitutional violation of its own citizens' voting rights for a state to apportion its electoral votes based on how the citizens of other states voted, just as it would be to elect its legislature on that basis.
Possibly. The issue was narrower though. In Wash state, a federal court said the State could punish electors who chose not to vote for Trump, as the state law apportioned all electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote, and in Colo a fed court said the State could not punish an elector. The SC just said, it's up to the state.

There will be more commentary here. There's link to the opinion at the top. In Chiafalo v. Washington, the justices held that a state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee – and the state voters’ choice – for president in the Electoral College.
 
I think it would be an unconstitutional violation of its own citizens' voting rights for a state to apportion its electoral votes based on how the citizens of other states voted, just as it would be to elect its legislature on that basis.
Possibly. The issue was narrower though. In Wash state, a federal court said the State could punish electors who chose not to vote for Trump, as the state law apportioned all electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote, and in Colo a fed court said the State could not punish an elector. The SC just said, it's up to the state.

It doesn't matter about whether a state will punish electors or not, ALL electors votes MUST go to the winner of the states popular vote.
 
I feel this ruling is slightly more legislative than constitutional in nature. Being left of center I have no problem with that. I do see this as welding shut one improbable can of worms while opening up an improbable larger can. With the lack of flexibility provided the electors, unforeseen circumstances happening between the time electors are chosen and when they convened in their state capitals for the electoral college vote could be troublesome. Even now, there are varying opinions when the November winner actually becomes the president-elect. Some say it is determined by (1) November general election. Others claim (2) after the elector college vote. And lastly (3) when the new congress counts the vote in early January.
 
Last edited:
So much for the interstate vote compact, a leftist scheme to ignore the electoral college.

I'm not so sure. My understand is that the court ruled state laws binding electors are legal. These binding laws currently tied to candidates are replaced in the compact by new rule binding electors to the national popular vote winner.
 
I'm not so sure. My understand is that the court ruled state laws binding electors are legal. These binding laws currently tied to candidates are replaced in the compact by new rule binding electors to the national popular vote winner.
This should be clarified but even so given Trump's 2016 victory was possible due to the electoral college
this pact will make no difference.
 
Very interesting to read how Thomas completely disagrees with the majority reasoning yet agrees with the conclusion.

Taking away the ability of electors to make their own judgements makes having electors superfluous IMO.Why are they needed if they simply convey the results of a state’s vote? The same thing would be accomplished without the middle man.

I think this is probably a case where the original intent Is lost because it wasn’t codified.
 
I'd like to see the details. I was under the impression that the original intent of the system was for the electors to have the choice to vote for whomever they wanted, but that doesn't mean states don't have the power to compel them. I'm interested in reading both the majority decision and the dissent, if there is one.
You are correct, the constitution actually says that legislators pick the electors and those electors choose 2 people. The one with the most votes becomes president, the one with the next amount of votes becomes vp. The vote of the people isnt even mentioned in the process.
 
I'd like to see the details. I was under the impression that the original intent of the system was for the electors to have the choice to vote for whomever they wanted, but that doesn't mean states don't have the power to compel them. I'm interested in reading both the majority decision and the dissent, if there is one.

No dissent when it is 9-0
oh there will be a dissent.

just won't be from the SCOTUS.
 
From the article:

"The justices unanimously rejected the claim that electors have a right under the Constitution to defy their states and vote for the candidate of their choice.

The electoral college system, created by the Founding Fathers, has been criticized as being outdated and unfair to voters. In two of the past five presidential elections, the winner came in second in the national vote, but nonetheless won a combination of states that yielded more electoral votes.

Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution gives states the power to appoint electors who in turn must abide by the state's rules.

"The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for president," she said."

This means if a state chose Biden by popular vote the state MUST give him ALL of the electoral votes of that state.

No exceptions are allowed.

This is a GREAT decision!
That wasn't the decision. Some states have rules that permit division of electoral votes. That is unchanged. During the 2016 election some democrats believed that an elector was free to defy the charge given to them to vote as instructed and vote according to the way they wanted, to be faithless. Democrats believed that this was a way to deliver electoral votes from states like Wyoming and Texas. All they had to do was turn a couple of electors. This ruling says that can't happen
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top