Crosscut, a non-partisan on-line news service in Washington state, has this article about the two lawsuits still pending on whether states can punish or replace presidential electors who voted for someone other than the person who received the most popular votes in their own state.

The article also explains how irrational it was for the Washington state legislature this year to pass a bill to replace “disobedient” electors, while the Washington State Supreme Court still hasn’t issued its opinion on whether the U.S. Constitution gives electors the freedom to vote for any qualified candidate.

The article quotes Washington State Senator Patty Kuderer as saying that, “so far”, all the courts have ruled that states can control electors.  Actually, no court has yet ruled that states may do that.  All of the lower court opinions on this issue have ducked the issue, by saying the cases were moot, or that the electors don’t have standing.  Kuderer is also wrong to say, “I don’t think that’s what the Constitution ever intended (in reference to whether presidential electors have freedom of choice).”  It is clear from the debate at the 1787 constitutional convention that the founders expected the electors to make their own enlightened choice on who should be president.

The Libertarian National Committee has been in federal court in the District of Columbia, contesting a Federal Election Commission ruling restricting gifts to the party from deceased individuals, for over eight years.  The party is still waiting for a decision on the merits.

The party’s first lawsuit on this subject was filed on March 17, 2011.  Raymond Burrington had left the party $217,734 in his will, but the FEC did not permit the party to receive the money in one lump sum.  Instead, the FEC said the party could only receive $30,800 in any one calendar year.  This was because the McCain-Feingold law, which sharply restricts donations to political parties, did not permit an individual to donate more than $30,800, whether the person is alive or dead.  The party argued that the purpose of the limit, to prevent any wealthy individual from bribing politicians by making big donations to that politician’s party, has no rational purpose if the donation is from someone who has died.  The party argued that in this instance, Burrington had not even told the party about his will before he died, so clearly in circumstances like that, there could be no fear about bribery.

The lawsuit over the Burrington bequest took so long, that by the time the case was ready for a decision, the party had received all the money in annual chunks.  So no ruling on the merits was ever issued.

Then, the party received an even bigger bequest, from Joseph Shaber, another person who had not told the party he had left it a donation in his will.  A new lawsuit was filed concerning the Shaber bequest on January 25, 2016.  It is still pending.  After years of litigation over whether this case should be sent to the entire en banc panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit, it was sent there.  The entire panel of D.C. Appeals Judges then heard oral argument in the case on December 14, 2018.  There is still no decision, five months later.  The case is Libertarian National Committee v FEC, 18-5227.