On August 31, the Colorado Republican Party filed this amicus curiae brief in the Tenth Circuit in Baca v Williams, 18-1173. This is the case over whether presidential electors have a right to vote for anyone who meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, or whether states can force them to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most popular votes in that state.
The lawsuit had been filed in 2016 by several Democratic presidential electors, so it is somewhat odd that the Republican Party is intervening. The Republican Party supports the position of the state of Colorado. The state believes that any presidential candidate who votes for someone other than the popular vote winner thereby ceases to be an elector, even though the voters in November chose the electors.
The EC is 1 0f the 3 EVIL ROTTED TO THE CORE minority rule gerrymander math systems in the USA regime.
Ongoing perversion of 1 Amdt in *election mechanics* – esp since 1968.
—
Const Amdt –
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA
PR and NONPARTISAN AppV – pending Condorcet
The Democratic electors had pledged to support the candidate of the party. Presumably, the Democratic Party would not have chosen them if they had not done so. If the lawsuit by the renegade electors succeeds, the Republican Party would be harmed because voters might believe Republican electors might do the same.
Colorado should elect presidential electors as individuals. In a primary, an elector candidate could indicate (with permission of the presidential candidate) their choice for president.
IMO, Presidential electors should only be pledged if a party requires it, and should only be civilly liable to that party if they violate that pledge.
The Art II / 12 Amdt Prez Elector office is a PUBLIC office controlled by L-A-W —
aka a government of LAWS and NOT of LAWLESS men/women.
ALL the EC cases are ILLEGAL/frivolous — ALL the plaintiff so-called lawyers should be $$$ sanctioned.
Ongoing perversion attempts of 1 Amdt in *election mechanics* stuff.
More–
Con Law 101
Direct = Indirect
Majority of voters choose the Prez Electors for AA
— BUT such Prez AA Electors vote for ZZ
The majority will is thus IN-directly subverted —
subversion of 14-1 (EPC) and 14-2 (*abridged*).
Do 2018 judges have ANY LEGAL brain cells ???
Again, IMO, if the voters want to vote knowingly for electors that are not pledged, they should be allowed to do so.
Every state should allow unpledged electors on the ballot.
The Framers never intended the electors to be pledged to a given candidate, but to use their own judgment. If we are a union of sovereign states, as we are supposed to be, then the states should pick the president.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties would be taking the opposite position if a third-party or independent candidate won the state.
Abolish the EC –
—
NONPARTISAN AppV for ALL exec/judic offices – pending Condorcet.
Mere 55 Prez Electors in CA in 2016-2020.
How BIG for the Prez Electors part of a ballot ??? — esp. if with number choices- for individual Prez Electors.
The very advanced ROT is due to SCOTUS making a Prez into a military god-monarch-tyrant with each WAR (esp UN-declared WARS) and econ depression/recession since 1789.
See the END-ROT DOOOOOOOM in the Roman Republic in 120 BC-27 BC.
It seems to me that the central issue is not whether a state can disqualify an elector, but whether a state can nullify an elector’s vote after it has been cast.
Do any of the briefs mention that question?
Voting against the WILL of the Voters *nullifys* the Prez Elector’s vote.
This stuff ain’t atomic physics.
Part of the LAW is Agency.
The main party directs the *agent(s)* to do such and such.
Main Party – the public Voters
Agents – the Prez Electors (connected to the Main Party public Voters via the Prez candidate names on the public ballots)
@Arthur DiBianca,
See Minnesota’s faithless elector act (index here)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/208
The model law was drafted after a Minnesota elector in 2004 voted for “John Ewards” (sic) for President (and apparently John Edwards for Vice President) which is in violation of the Constitution, unless Ewards is someone different than Edwards. At the time, Minnesota electors voted by secret ballot, and it has never been determined who cast the vote.
The key to the statute is in 208.41 where “cast” is defined as not happening until the ballot is accepted by the Secretary of State.
An elector nominee is not accepted until they have signed a pledge to vote for the nominee of the party. That is, if a voter puts an X next to the name of the DFL presidential candidate Hillary Clinton they have an assurance that the DFL electors have pledged to vote for Clinton.
208.44 recognizes that a vacancy may occur prior to the end of the meeting of electors. Most states have provisions that if electors don’t show up, the remaining electors may choose a replacement. In the early years, it was not uncommon for electors to show up or perhaps even have died before the meeting of electors. The Constitution provides that election is by a majority of electors _appointed_ so a vacancy would make it more difficult to reach a majority.
But 208.44 goes even further, by declaring that a vacancy occurs when an elector fills in a ballot with the name of someone that the elector was not pledged to. Minnesota has a quite elaborate procedure with alternate electors, and contemplates that the whole slate might refuse to vote for the party nominee.
Note that in Minnesota they even provide a revised Certificate of Ascertainment in case of replacement (i.e. we appointed John Doe on election day, but he did not attend the elector meeting/would not vote as pledged, so he appointed Jane Doe.
Colorado is interesting because there is not this elaborate procedure in statute. The SOS implemented it by regulation after one of the electors asked what would happen if they didn’t vote for Clinton.
Most of the states with faithless electors had systems where the elector nominees were chosen prior to the final determination of the presidential candidate. A supporter of Bernie Sanders might be willing to pledge to vote for the Democratic nominee who he was sure would be Sanders. If the elector candidates were named by the actual presidential candidates there would likely not be a problem with faithless electors.
So Hillary Clinton would have filed in Colorado. She would have named Tim Kaine as her vice-presidential candidate, named 9 elector candidates, and declared that she was a Democrat.
She would include consents signed by Kaine, the 9 elector candidates, and the state chair of the Democratic Party.
208.44
Due to the Prez being CIC of USA military forces (and various BARBARIAN KILLER regimes on Mother Earth) —
MUST BE ZERO doubts about who is elected Prez/VP —
Art II – 12 Amdt – 14-1 – etc.
— IE — YES or NO for ALL steps in the process — NOT any *may be*.
The MORON States with vague Prez laws may/will cause a SUPER-CRISIS.
The 2000 Bush v Gore super-mess might have been LOTS worse.
Above Sept 1 3:58 PM
If Presidential Electors must vote for the candidates of the party who nominated the Electors, then are all registered members of that party also “faithless” electors if they do not vote for the party’s candidates? Wasn’t the Secret Ballot reform supposed to prevent this kind of voter intimidation?
The march toward a one-party police state continues.
DFR —
NO party hack registration lists.
NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
PR and AppV