On December 9, Colorado filed this brief in Baca v Hickenlooper, the case over whether presidential electors can vote for any qualified presidential candidate, or whether they can be replaced if they vote for someone different than expected.
The only U.S. Supreme Court precedent on this subject is Ray v Blair, 1952. Most people probably don’t realize when they read about Ray v Blair that in 1952 and previous years, the Alabama Democratic Party chose its candidates for presidential elector in a primary. Nowadays, no party chooses candidates for presidential elector in a primary. In Ray v Blair, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Democratic Party rule that no one could get on a party’s primary ballot (as a candidate for presidential elector) unless that person signed a pledge promising to vote for the party’s eventual presidential nominee. Thus Ray v Blair was about the right of parties to control who could seek their nomination. It was not about the ability of presidential electors to vote freely in December. Thanks to Politico for the link.
UPDATE: here is the brief of the intervenor, the Colorado Republican Committee.
How many machinations by the various HACKS are needed to get the ANTI-Democracy E.C. ABOLISHED —
merely to prevent Civil W-A-R II ???
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Hmmmm….constitutional law about political parties where there is not a single reference to political parties in the constitution.
Bullshit.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/colorado-gop-electoral-college-lawsuit-232452
CHAOS — the standard excuse by the EVIL HACKS for thousands of years —
abolish the absolute monarchy = chaos
abolish slavery = chaos
NO property to be an Elector-Voter = chaos
women vote = chaos
etc.
The plaintiffs signed a pledge to the Democratic Party to vote for the nominees of the party. I don’t see a distinction from ‘Ray v Blair’ in requiring that persons who might potentially be elected by Democratic voters, and those who might potentially be elected by delegates to the Democratic state convention that they will vote for the party presidential candidate.
If parties can not ensure that the electors associated with their party and their presidential and vice-presidential nominee will vote for those nominees, parties should be stripped of their ability to make nominations.
I like the suggestion of the Republican Party that no injunction be issued, and the plaintiffs could take their dispute to Congress when it counts the electoral votes.
“In Ray v Blair, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Democratic Party rule that no one could get on a party’s primary ballot (as a candidate for presidential elector) unless that person signed a pledge promising to vote for the party’s eventual presidential nominee.”
Is there any state by state info indicating to whom the electors are pledged? To the candidate? To the party? To the state? That would indicate who has standing in the event that any of them violate their pledges.
@Walt Ziobro,
In Colorado, the pledge was to support the nominee of the Democratic Party. The electors were selected at the Democratic state convention in April, prior to the nominee being determined.
Had Polly Baca stated in April that she intended to be a Hamiltonian elector, who if elected, would deliberate in December, and could not be counted on to vote for the Democratic nominee, she would not have been chosen as an elector nominee.
The basis for the Republican Party intervention in the case is that they would be harmed if a pledge could not be enforced. The 9 Republican candidates in effect campaigned on the slogan, “If elected we will vote for the Republican nominees Donald Trump and Mike Pence”.
The simplest solution is to have presidential candidates qualify on an individual basis. If political parties want to support a candidate they could hand out flyers. Slates of electors could also qualify without a candidate.
My goal for this year essay writer.