Chris Suprun, a Texas Republican candidate for presidential elector, says if elected in November, he may not vote for Donald Trump in December. See this Politico story. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
This story, and similar stories, often point out that some states have laws telling presidential electors that they must vote for the presidential candidate they had said they would vote for. These stories never point out that these laws are unenforceable. A presidential elector has the constitutional right to help choose the President, regardless of any state law. A state may punish such an elector, but a state can’t tell him or her how to vote.
Three states say that presidential electors who are “faithless” are deemed to have resigned, and are instantly replaced by the other electors from that state. But if the entire state delegation casts “faithless” votes, that law won’t work, because then that state wouldn’t have any electors.
It would seem that a “faithless” electoral vote would be a done deal. Any replacement elector would be moot. The constitution only gives the state legislatures the authority to decide how to choose electors. it doesn’t give them the option of a do-over.
I beg to differ.
Each Prez Elector is an AGENT of the State/DC involved.
Agents obey their principal controllers or else — i.e. comply with the Election results or else.
See also 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — which includes elections for Prez Electors.
Minnesota statutes purport to address that possibility.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=208&format=pdf
An elector is not deemed to have “voted” until the Secretary of State has examined the ballot and ensured that the elector had voted in accordance with his pledge.
In Minnesota, parties name 9 electors and 9 elector alternates. If an elector doesn’t show up, his alternate takes his place. If that alternate is not available, then a replacement is selected by lot from among all alternates present. If the alternate pool is exhausted, then an elector may be chosen by the remaining electors among immediately available persons who have taken the pledge. If there are no electors left, the Secretary of State may appoint an elector
The real solution is to require election of presidential electors; and require that they be elected in the same manner as US representatives. Then have the presidential electors meet as a single body and elect the president and Vice President.
The OBVIOUS remedy is to have a UNIFORM definition of Elector-VOTER in ALL of the USA — including the occupied colonies — as a direct means to save Democracy in the USA (and END the nonstop machinations by the robot party HACKS from Hell).
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. ( including the election of a Prez/VP by such Elector-Voters.
Umm Demo Rep… each party names a slate of electors and if that party’s candidate wins the state then that party’s electors take part in the electoral college vote. To suggest otherwise just shows ignorance . The states have nothing to do with appointing or naming electors.
Maybe you need an education on our electoral system, because you sure don’t know it.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/american-civics-parent/american-civics/v/electoral-college
How refreshing it is here in Texas for a GOP representative, at any level, to express a conviction/concern instead of mindlessly following the other lemmings.
I doubt Suprun would vote for Clinton. Most likely he would abstain from voting at all, similarly to the DC elector in 2000 who abstained from voting for Gore as a protest regarding DC lack of congressional representation.
Suprun would probably put forth another conservative’s name.
@Jim Riley: I take it that Minnesota adopted that law after one of their electors voted for John Edwards both for president and VP in 2004.
AMc — the current Electoral College *system* is one of the 3 EVIL and CORRUPT minority rule gerrymander systems in the USA minority rule regime —
stacked on top of the minority rule gerrymander systems in ALL States.
I.E. each Prez has been DE FACTO elected by about 30 percent of the voters in about 55 percent of the States/DC — those having a bare majority of the rotted Electoral College.
Lots of math MORONS in the USA — it shows by their brainwashed comments on this list.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep a minority of people voting is a good thing. Most Americans are too ill informed or disinterested to be able to cast a ballot. The Electoral College was the recognition by the Founding Fathers of how wrong it would be to allow everyone to vote. The problem with elections in America is that too many people vote. It would be much better to restrict the franchise to a small group.
@Joshua K,
Yes, the Minnesota statute was passed in 2005.
This is a link to a template for a uniform state law to deal with faithless electors.
http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Faithful%20Presidential%20Electors%20Act
Under the US Constitution, presidential electors are appointed. In states that use popular election to select electors, the appointment is deemed to occur on election day. You can visualize all the voters shouting out who they were appointing, and the Secretary of State determining which candidates received the most support.
The final determination, or ascertainment, of who was appointed on election day, is not made until after the votes have been canvassed. The Governor is required to send a Certificate of Ascertainment to Congress, which list the persons who were appointed, and the basis of that appointment (e.g. the number of votes received by the presidential/vice presidential candidates). The electors who were appointed are also notified.
Under the uniform act, the Governor indicates that the Certificate of Ascertainment may be amended. If an elector doesn’t show up, or refuses to vote for the candidates of his party, then it is considered to create a vacancy, and the Certificate of Ascertainment is amended. So the legal interpretation of what happened, would be that a would-be faithless elector had refused to honor his pledge, and thereby had vacated his position. His replacement would be noted on the amended Certificate of Ascertainment.
RE: Stock comments —
How many reborn TYRANTs on this list — like Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Mao, Saddam, , etc. etc. ???
The MORONS who love the minority rule in the Electoral College are the same MORONS who loved slavery in 1776-1865, who love having a killer Prez and more and more UN-declared WARS, states of emergency, etc. etc.
Too many MORONS to count.
Why would you say that publicly, so now they can remove you? Just do it.
In 1972, a Nixon elector in Virginia voted for the Libertarian candidate, John Hospers. (His running mate, Toni Nathan, became the first woman to receive an electoral vote.) In 1976, a Ford elector in Washington voted for Reagan.
Given that it’s texas, I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Suprun is intending to vote for Cruz-Fiorina.