On May 2, the Hawaii legislature passed SB 141. It says that if a presidential elector doesn’t vote for the presidential nominee that he or she had been expected to vote for, that elector is replaced with someone else.
On May 2, the Hawaii legislature passed SB 141. It says that if a presidential elector doesn’t vote for the presidential nominee that he or she had been expected to vote for, that elector is replaced with someone else.
ANY STATE/DC STILL ALLOWING ***DISOBEDIENT*** 12 AMDT ELECTORS ??? —
ESP ANY **LIBERAL** IE COMMIE STATES/DC.
These “disobedient” elector laws are of doubtful legality. Federal law specifies the date on which all of them are chosen, which is the election day in November. Replacing them on the day that they vote in December is choosing new electors on a date AFTER they are supposed to be elected. At best they can only VOID the votes of disobedient electors, but not replace them.
@WZ,
States can fill vacancies. The legal theory here is that by failing to vote the right way they have vacated their seat.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=135996
MERE INSURRECTION OR REBELLION NOT ENOUGH FOR PURGES ???
HOW MUCH SLAMMER TIME FOR SEDITION FOLKS ???
WHEN WILL THE SEDITIONER-IN-CHIEF GO ON TRIAL ???
Biden should be on trial now, but it may take a year or two.
The theory of electors was that they would be a deliberative body, and if I’m not mistaken originally chosen by legislators. Some states now have ten times the population by themselves that the US had at founding. The safeguards in that system didn’t hold up. I take the better ones and try to improve on them with my proposal.
“The legal theory here is that by failing to vote the right way they have vacated their seat.”
A lousy idea that overturns the original concept of electors as free agents.
No state should compel by law how electors vote. If they pledge to vote for someone, and then fail to follow up, that is a private issue between the elector and the candidate, or the party that nominated that candidate.
The idea, as I understand it, was that most of the power would be local and state. The US was about 3 million people, 13 states, so about 200k roughly per state. Voter qualifications were not as stringent as my proposal, but much better than now. Most voters knew their legislator. Legislators were to pick electors they knew, and electors were to deliberate on a president. The president himself had far less power; legislators were more important. I take that intent, look at where things went wrong since then, and tighten things up more.
APPOINTED SCOTUS HACKS HAVE SUBVERTED USA CONST —
ESP PERVERSIONS OF
1-8-1 GENERAL WELFARE CL AND
1-8-3 INTERSTATE COMM CL
RESULT- STATES ALMOST D-E-A-D – NOW MAINLY PASS THRU AGENTS FOR FED CASH TO LOCAL GOVTS AND WELFARE GROUPS.
ONGOING INFLATION DESTRUCTION OF DOLLAR SINCE 1933
NOW CIRCA 31 TRILLION USA DEBT PLUS ABOUT 15 TRILLION STATES/LOCALS DEBT ADDED SINCE 1929.
CONGRESS ELEPHANTS WEAKLY TRYING TO CUT DEBT ROT-
SEE OLDE WARFRE/WELFARE BANKRUPT EURO REGIMES- UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, ITALY, ETC
—-
P-A-T
Stop obsessing and move on. You’re getting to be like a stalker now.
Max pop/voters in any MZ regime ???
then auto divide ???
For once you asked a good question. I have not thought that part through yet. Thanks!
@WZ,
By the fourth election in 1800 they realized that this quaint notion of free agent electors was not valid.
Richard, which other states have a replacement clause?