On March 6, the Virginia legislature passed SB 203, which sets up a non-partisan redistricting commission. It is a proposed constitutional amendment, so voters will vote on the idea in November 2020.
7
Law Professor Derek Muller has filed this amicus in Chiafalo v State of Washington, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should not render a decision on whether presidential electors have freedom to vote for any qualified candidate. He says that Congress should settle such disputes. He points out that Micheal Baca, the plaintiff from Colorado who sued after the Secretary of State of Colorado “fired” him, should have asked Congress to recognize him as an elector. Because Baca failed to do so, Professor Muller advocates that Baca lacks standing.
Muller also says that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to hear Bush v Gore in 2000. In that case, he argues, the U.S. Supreme Court intruded on the authority of Congress. By contrast, in the disputed election of 1876, Congress created a way to resolve the dispute.
The Independence Institute has filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiafalo v State of Washington. The Independence Institute brief is on the side of presidential elector freedom of choice, and has a lengthy list of dictionary definitions from the 18th century for the words “elector” and “ballot” to reinforce that opinion.
Five scholars have filed this amicus curiae brief in Chiafalo v State of Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court presidential elector case. They are Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, David F. Forte, Michael Stokes Paulsen, and Sotirios Barber. Their brief is a fascinating read for persons interested in the history of the electoral college. Especially interesting is the section toward the end, about the 1896 presidential election, relative to the different vice-presidential candidates of the Democratic Party and the Peoples Party.
On March 6, Citizens for Self-Governance filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Chiafalo v State of Washington, 19-465, the case over whether presidential electors are free to vote for the candidate of their choice. Citizens for Self-Governance supports the presidential electors. However, Citizens for Self-Governance makes an argument that the Court (if it agrees) should write its opinion to cover only presidential electors, and not state delegates to a convention called to write possible amendments to the U.S. Constitution.