On July 6, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinions in Chiafalo v Washington and Colorado Department of State v Baca, numbers 19-608 and 19-465. The Court ruled unanimously that states can replace or punish presidential electors who vote for someone other than the candidate who carried the popular vote in that state.
The decision is by Justice Elena Kagan, who said the Constitution is silent on the question. The only precedent she cited is Ray v Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). But that case was over whether a political party had the right to exclude from its primary ballot the names of candidates for presidential elector who wouldn’t sign a pledge prepared by the party, that they would vote for the popular vote winner. At the time, the Alabama Democratic Party chose presidential elector nominees in its primary. No state does that any longer. The decision is only 18 pages.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the outcome, but they would have upheld the state laws on Tenth Amendment grounds. Here is the Washington state opinion.
Here is a one-paragraph decision in the Colorado case.
Under the literal language of the laws of these two states, the electors would be forced to vote for a deceased candidate. Footnote 8 mentions this problem and says states are of course free to write laws dealing with this.
At least the HACKS do NOT want Civil War II due to any *faithless* Prez/VP Electors.
The EC minority rule gerrymander math is quite enough for Civil War II —
as in Civil WAR I in 1860-1861.
—-
Abolish the super-timebomb EC.
Uniform Definition of VOTER – USA citizen, 18 plus years olde. PERIOD.
PR and appV
TOTSOP
ANNOUNCEMENT
By James Ogle for US President or Vice President and LNC Vice Chair
7/6/2020
http://Www.pprelectoralcollege.com
Many of our Electors attended the Los Angeles City Micro-state, Region 62 and Los Angeles County L.P. annual conventions, and now the United Coalition USA has good news.
Minutes of the meetings and press releases about the tie on the Los Angeles County L.P. convention are written and web pages will be updated.
Good job to everyone for the hard work.
I am in Arizona myself heading to LNC convention in Orlando now.
Respectfully,
James Ogle [One] for President and Vice President or LNC Chair.
539-party System Stage Two
The entire SCOTUS is an abject joke, Thomas included. Clearly the Framers intended for the Electoral College to be a deliberative body, hence the name “college.”
The Constitution does not have the term “electoral college” in its text. It has “electors” but no mention of a college. But I agree that it is clear that the framers expected the electors to deliberate, even though they all meet in their separate state capitols.
The decision does not explicitly address the issue of nullifying an elector’s vote. (I believe the appeals court mentioned it.) It says that states can punish electors, or remove them, but it does not explicitly say that states can nullify an elector’s vote (which is what Colorado did). I assume it will be “deemed to mean” that states can nullify those votes, but I’m surprised it doesn’t say so explicitly.
This decision pretty much preempts the court from declaring the NPV compact unconstitutional if and when it is activated.
Well. as I see this beyond being forced to vote for a dead candidate, I see 2 other hitches to this ruling that may occur in the future. First off, though it’s extremely unlikely to ever happen again, having last occurred 60 years ago it’s still theoretically possible that an Un-pledged Elector List could win in a state. It would probably be more likely to happen in a state that permits a voter to choose NONE OF THE ABOVE for any office. Second, what about the Progressive’s vaunted dream to force the electors in many states to vote for the National popular vote winner rather than who won in their state? I don’t know about Colorado but Washington State is a member of the Compact. Shouldn’t this Federal Supreme Court ruling over-ride any State law regarding the National Vote Compact? Thereby forcing Washington State or any other state for that matter in the same situation to not fulfill it’s obligation under the compact? Which should be invalid anyways since as far as I know the signers have never sought the approval of the Federal government.
NPV scheme = one more RED Donkey communist scheme —
subvert 14-1.
Having votes OUTSIDE a State determine results INSIDE a State.
Also — NO definition of Voter in the NPV scheme —
RED communist CA, NY, MA, etc can have Russia/China/N. Korea *voters* voting for USA Prez/VP.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/opinion-analysis-court-upholds-faithless-elector-laws/
SB analysis
The Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act has a note that it does not address the issue of a deceased presidential candidate, but that issue may be addressed separately by state law.
I’m sure I have seen laws (or bills) that would require the electors to decide whether candidates are qualified or not before voting.
@AB, Under the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act, a preliminary ballot is prepared, and if an elector deviates, they are deemed to have resigned, and are replaced. That is what happened in Colorado, though somewhat on an ad hoc basis.
@Deemer,
Washington has adopted the uniform faithful presidential elector act, and incorporated the NPV scheme in its statute.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/06/justices-rule-states-can-bind-presidential-electors-votes/112064444/
AP story
It might simply be easier, and less contentious and litigeous, if states let parties pick their electors after their Presidential candidate wins a state.
What’s next, punishing voters for voting the wrong way?
LG–
Majority rule is subverted/overthrown by ALL the various ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander systems since 1776-1789 —–
USA H Reps
USA Senate
USA EC
ALL 50 State legis — 99 houses
ALL local legis bodies having gerrymander districts.
All gerrymander systems for electing state/local execs/judics.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL = oligarchies —
EVIL rotted Top to Bottom — with monarch top MONSTERS.
Much, much, much worse primary math.
Too many SUPER-STUPID MORON talking heads to count on cable / Sunday AM talk shows, etc. etc.
—-
PR and AppV
TOTSOP
Autocracy, baby! Bring back the Romanovs!
Chiafalo Completes the Coup
The exact opposite of what the Framers originally intended has now been made the Law of the Land. John Jay wrote in Fed 64 that the virtue of the Electoral College is that it can dampen “the activity of party zeal.” Hamilton, in Fed 68, envisioned Electors as sophisticated people, who could be the free thinking representatives of the common folks in the Pres/VP election process.
Leading Framers, such as Washington and Madison, feared and abhorred “factions,” or parties. They did not want parties electing presidents. The Electoral College was part of the Separation of Powers, and was supposed to be a place conducive to deliberation. The Framers were men of the Enlightenment.
The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, states that “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and [on a separate ballot] Vice-President …” (This repeats the language in Art 2, sec 1.)
One problem here is interpreting the meaning of “and vote.” To me, the Framers envisioned deliberation. But the two party system has captured the process for electing the Pres/VP, and, speaking as the creatures of the two party system nominating process, the Supreme Court has served the interests of the two party system, and virtually Amended the Constitution to incorporate the political parties.
Chiafalo cements what was begun in Ray v Blair.
In Ray v Blair, the Court said that having electors pledge to vote according to the popular vote was OK. The opinion is worth reading for the dissent by Jackson and Douglas.
In a 5 to 2 decision (with two abstentions), the majority of Supreme Court Justices voted to uphold the constitutionality of such “pledging.” Even though the Court acknowledged that this pledging practice is not what the Framers had originally intended, they held that it was a time-honored custom, and therefore should be given the High Court’s imprimatur.
For the dissenters, such pledging contradicted the original intentions that Electors be independent minded, and that their votes be an expression of their wills following their own deliberative process.
Jackson wrote that under the control of the parties, Electors “officially became voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities to whose memory we might justly paraphrase a tuneful satire:
They always voted at their Party’s call
And never thought
of thinking for themselves
at all.”
Ray v. Blair (1952), 343 US 215
Learn more at, Original Intentions of Framers for US Presidential Elections
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1317837
At this point how can anyone deny that if the electoral college ever had any legitimate purpose (it didn’t, but that’s a separate issue) it no longer would?