On December 14, attorneys for California state government filed this brief in Koller v Brown, n.d., 5:16cv-7069. This is the lawsuit in which a California Democratic presidential elector seeks to invalidate the California law that requires presidential elector candidates to vote in the electoral college for the national ticket of that elector’s party.
The state brief almost reads like a court decision instead of the brief of one side. It presents the arguments on both sides. However, it says the elector is not entitled to injunctive relief, because even though California law tells electors how to vote, California law does not have any penalty for an elector who disobeys. Therefore, the state says, Koller is not being subject to any possible harm, no matter what he does. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Most sane States have a default criminal punishment section for illegal acts or omissions — esp. for election law violations.
How soon before all regimes totally collapse due to the gerrymander hack MORONS in such regimes ???
@DemoRep:
Don’t hold your breath. “Gerrymander hack moron” regimes have been around for over 200 years.
*Modern* Gerrymander hack moron regimes have been around since the 1200s — formation of the English House of Commons.
Earlier FATAL regime — the late Roman Republic with tribal gerrymander stuff using the Rome downtown animal pens.
Result – total collapse in 27 BC — tyrant killer Augustus Caesar took over.
P.R. since the 1840s in CIVILIZED regimes — now in most of the free world.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — before it is TOO LATE — which it may be with Trump on 20 Jan 2017.
Kamala Harris should formally recuse herself, since she will be directly involved in counting the electoral votes.
California was likely inhibited in their defense because there is no state law governing how to translate marks on ballot papers into presidential electors, and the SOS informed county election officials in August that it had no clue how to proceed if Donald J. Trump received the most popular votes. The SOS insisted on including instructions on ballots which left no way for a voter to execute, and did not require other mandatory language that would at least give a clue to a voter how their mark on the ballot paper would be interpreted.
California has a weird system where the political parties inform the SOS of their elector nominees, and then the SOS informs the nominees. Koller may never have made a formal commitment to vote for Clinton and Kaine.
The State did not mention that California permits independent slates of electors to be uncommitted, so that Koller’s injury is self-inflicted.
If a state may not bind its electors, is it constitutional for a State to enter into a compact, conspiracy, or other scheme that would purportedly collectively bind their electors?