At least four Texas bills have been introduced to punish or thwart presidential electors who don’t vote for the presidential candidate who received the most popular votes in the state. Representative Bill Zedler introduced HB 1060, which says that such electors are guilty of a “jail felony.” Representative John Raney and three others introduced HB 543, which provides for a $5,000 fine and says the offender can never again qualify as a presidential elector. Representative Mike Schofield introduced HB 771, and Representative Pat Fallon introduced HB 1391. Those bills require parties to nominate alternate presidential elector candidates, and if an elector disobeys, he or she is replaced by an alternate. Thanks to Jim Riley for this news.
All unconstitutional.
Now, IMO, HB 771 and HB 1391 point the way to something that might be constitutional. That is if a state political party requires an elector to sign an agreement to remain faithful on pain of removal from service.
As compared to criminal law, certainly, and even compared to fines, unconstitutionality doesn’t carry the same weight in torts. But, requiring a political party to undertake a certain action might itself be iffy.
@SocraticGadfly:
I agree. The decision of whether or not electors are pledged should be up to the parties. In fact. I would favor petitions to put unpledged electors on the ballot, as well.
Richard:
1) What does this bill say about Electors for an Independent (Unaffiliated) candidate? 2) Since it can be argued that a fine for voting could be construed as a “poll tax”, shouldn’t all states be Constitutionally prohibited from fining “faithless” Electors?
There are now at least seven bills.
HB 771, HB 1391, and SB 412 set up a system of alternate electors. The language is permissive, with a party or independent candidate able to name up to the total number of electors (38, currently). The bill is carelessly written so a write-in candidate cannot name alternates.
The bill also doesn’t change the system for vacancies for other reasons. Under current law, electors who don’t show up can be replaced by the other electors. In 2016, four electors did not show up and were replaced. While the remaining electors could have chosen anyone, they were probably arranged by the RPT. The three bills would only require the replacement to be chosen from the list of alternates, if the vacancy is caused by a faithless elector.
The NCSL has an elaborate scheme for faithless electors. Not only are there oaths and pledges there are double dog dares. See Minnesota statutes.
HB 543, HB 985, and SB 412 provide a $5000 fine. In Oklahoma (post 1960) and Washington (post 1976) the legislative response was the same, though inflation has increased the penalty five-fold.
HB 1060 would impose a state jail felony, which as a penalty of 6 months to 2 years in a county jail and/or a find of up to $10,000. Fortunately in Texas, civic participation is low, so it may be possible to get a 12-member jury who are unaware of there being a presidential election from a jury pool of about 24.
The basic problem is that electors were chosen at the state convention in May, when they were also picking faithless delegates who would switch to Cruz if possible.
Independent candidates choose their own electors, who presumably would be faithful. If all candidates had to file on their own behalf much closer to the general election, there would likely be fewer faithless electors. In addition, a presidential candidate could be expected to document their eligibility. A political party could add their endorsement.
If all presidential candidates had to file a petition with at least 90,000 signatures, there would likely be a reduction in the number of signatures required.