On December 12, a U.S. District Court Judge in Colorado ruled from the bench that he would not grant any relief to two Colorado Democratic presidential electors who say they may want to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton. The ruling so far is oral only, and has not been put in writing. Thanks to the Election Law Blog for the news. According to this story, one of the Democrats says he still isn’t going to vote for the ticket that he was expected to vote for.
Ahh, a judge who doesn’t understand the constitution!
Maybe the judge understands the Constitution, and that the judiciary is to stay out of political questions.
The electors should sue the Colorado Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton and the voters of Colorado to release them from the pledge that they made.
SocraticGadfly – What is it about the Constitution giving the States the right to set the way in which their Electors vote is giving you a problem?
This is a violation of the first Amendment and freedom of speech.
State officials acting in their official capacity do not have freedom of speech.
Colorado decided that the manner of appointing its electors was to hold popular elections where voters cast votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. The dissenters could have expressed their freedom of speech last April when they executed their pledge to vote for the nominees of the Colorado Democratic Party. If the Democratic chose not to make them elector candidates, they might have sued Colorado to permit them to run as a slate of unpledged electors.
Too many reasons now to count on the EMERGENCY need to abolish the E.C.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.