Link to Oral Argument in Tenth Circuit in “Faithless Electors” Case

Use this link to listen to the oral argument in Baca v Williams in the Tenth Circuit, held Thursday, January 24. This is the case over whether the Colorado Secretary of State had the authority to “fire” a presidential elector who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton, and to replace him with someone else.

The argument is 33 minutes long and is fascinating for anyone who is interested in the electoral college and how electors are chosen. The attorney for the electors made an interesting analogy to jury nullification. The attorney for the state made the analogy of a presidential elector to a member of a canvassing board, someone who only exercises a clerical function.

It seems somewhat likely that there will be a split decision, either 2-1 for the state or 2-1 for the electors.


Comments

Link to Oral Argument in Tenth Circuit in “Faithless Electors” Case — 5 Comments

  1. One more reason to ABOLISH the entire EVIL ROTTED EC MESS with the EVIL MONSTERS playing rig-the-results — aka gaming the *system*.

    WHO wants Civil WAR II — to kill millions/billions — if not destroy ALL *life* on Mother Earth ???

    See the 6 top MONSTERS in DEVIL City – P/VP 2 + SEN 2 + HR 2.

    PR and AppV

  2. If a state can remove an Elector for not voting with a majority or plurality of general voters, then the state could remove an Elector for voting with a majority or plurality of the general voters. In other words which party has control of the Executive branch in state (the Governor) can cast all a state’s Presidential Electoral voters as he/she wishes. The framers gave the governors of the states no role whatsoever in choosing a President. The general voters would in fact be irrelevant in the election of a president because the Electors they choose have become irrelevant and only the State Executive matters.

    What the ballot nullifiers seek is to make Presidential Electors as impotent with their ballots as ordinary voters have been made. OTOH, voters should have the same independence as Presidential Electors do. Ordinary voters constitutional rights are equal to those of Presidential Electors. In the past Presidential Electors were a selected sample of regular voters with the same discretion as all other voters. After 1888 that independence was eroded by the duopoly to make elections less and less transparent and controlled by voters and more and more controlled by bureaucrats beholden to duopoly bosses.

  3. @DFR, The presidential electors were more faithful prior to the adoption of the Australian ballot. You are under a delusion if you believe that the Libertarian Party would print millions of ballots and successfully distribute them to voters who would use them. The bosses would print the ballots, and name their loyal lieutenants as presidential electors. Their loyal footsoldiers would distribute the ballots and stuff the ballot boxes, and disrupt distribution of the ballots of other parties. Instead of thugs, parties now use lawyers.

    There is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents a governor from being appointed a presidential elector. Andrew Cuomo was a New York elector (some states, including Texas, bar dual office-holding. Someone who is a county official could not be an elector without forfeiting their county office).

    Most of the faithless electors in 2016 were selected at conventions controlled by opponents of the eventual party nominee. Bobby Berniecrat might be thrilled at the prospect of casting an electoral vote for Bernie Sanders. Even though the form they signed said that they pledged to vote for the presidential nominee of the party, they might never have imagined it would actually be Hillary Clinton. Berniecrat loyalty to the party may be somewhat superficial (Sanders himself has always refused the Democratic nomination in Vermont).

    Rather than attempting to control electors after they are appointed, it would be better to vet them better before they are appointed.

    (1) Appoint civil servants or retired judges. Their vote would be based on a vote during the election. The same electors would be appointed regardless of the outcome.

    (2) Have presidential candidates file for office, including elector candidates. State parties could still endorse the presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton would likely have chosen different electors than were chose by a Sanders-dominated state convention.

    (3) Let elector candidates run independently of presidential candidates. Voters could elect someone like DFR who might indicate how he would make his choice for president.

  4. Why do some folks LOVE the DARK AGE *electoral college* rotted minority rule gerrymander *system* ???

    What percent of the population would LOVE having the EVIL rotted divine right of kings regimes be reborn out of Hell ???

    England 1689 — after much chaos since 1066.
    France 1789
    Russia 1917
    Germany 1918
    Ottoman 1918
    Japan 1945
    etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.