On February 16, the Arizona House passed HB 2302 by a vote of 34-24. It says that any presidential elector who fails to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most votes in November is deemed to have resigned. It says the chair of that elector’s political party has the ability to replace that elector. The bill makes no provision for the possibility that an independent presidential candidate might conceivably carry Arizona. If the bill passes, one wonders if the state chair of the major political party that carries Arizona will be expected to sit in when the state’s electors vote, so that he or she would be available to choose another elector.
In Arizona, it is the presidential electors for an independent candidate who file. They may not circulate their petition until the presidential candidate has designated them 16-341F.
If it were the presidential candidate who filed, they could name their own presidential electors. An independent candidate could qualify by petition, a party candidate could qualify by a certificate from the state party.
In instances when a state government official has interfered with an Electors free choice of Presidential/VP candidates, the Congress having ultimate jurisdiction to judge Electors ballots ought hold all of the Electors’ ballots in that state in suspension pending an inquiry and resolution by the Congress.
Furthermore, interference with the free choice of an Elector by a state official should be subject to prosecution. Interference with the performance of an Elector’s duty to cast their ballot for U. S. President and Vice President by anyone should be a violation of state law and, in the event by a state official then grounds for impeachment and removal from state office.
The only grounds for interference with the appointment of Electors and the free exercise of the Elector’s judgment by a state official is secession from the Union thereby rendering the issue moot in Federal courts.
Or more accurately in my statement above, state secession removes the Federal courts from jurisdiction of Elector’s ballots.
For example,
The State of Oklahoma represented on the official ballot that if a voter put an X next to Gary Johnson (Libertarian) that 7 anonymous electors would cast their electoral votes for Gary Johnson and William Weld. If a voter suspected that any of the electors would/would not cast their vote for Johnson, they would have no way to dissent.
Your alternative only makes sense if there is no representation that the elector candidates support a particular presidential candidate or even a political party, and that voters could vote for individual electors.
The last time Congress seriously considered that an electoral vote was irregular was in 1968 when a North Carolina elector cast his vote for George Wallace rather than Richard Nixon.
Bills like these, and discussions like these of of bills like these, should be sufficient evidence that the anachronistic EC system needs to be jettisoned. Adopting the NPV interstate compact would be a prelude to a constitutional amendment that would put the EC, finally, into the grave where it belongs. We could then stop worrying about some faceless electors, unknown by name and qualifications to the entire country save a few dozen pols, turning the election of our president from one candidate to another.
Baronscarpia, what if there was a scenario where an independent candidate won but he and his running mate died either right before or right after the election. Currently the electors would be able to choose a suitable replacement, but without them, what group would decide who to succeed them?