On December 9, a U.S. District Court Judge in Colorado set a hearing date in Baca v Hickenlooper. This is the Colorado lawsuit over whether the Secretary of State can remove presidential electors who say they won’t vote for their party’s presidential nominee. The hearing is at 3 p.m. in Denver federal courthouse, room A-1002. The plaintiff presidential electors are seeking a court order to safeguard their positions as electors. The state’s brief is due by Friday, December 9, at 5 p.m.
UPDATE: the Colorado Republican Party has asked to intervene in the lawsuit, and the state has asked for permission from the court to file an oversized brief.
Is that Thursday, December 8; or Friday, December 9?
Thanks, Jim, I just corrected it.
If it is unconstitutional for a State to bind its presidential electors, is it constitutional for a State to enter into a conspiracy (or compact) with other States to collectively bind their electors?
There is a distinction to be made between a law telling an elector how to vote, and a law removing the elector. The state brief in this case makes a big deal out of the federal law concerning the District of Columbia electors. That law tells the DC electors to vote for the presidential candidate expected. But in 2000, a DC presidential elector disobeyed that law, and nothing was done about it.
As long as we have human beings serving as electors, there is no guarantee what they will do.