Minnesota Secretary of State Web Page Includes Incomplete Description of Meeting of Electoral College

Posted on by December 20, 2016
1

The Minnesota Secretary of State has this description of the December 19 meeting of the electors in St. Paul. Unlike the Washington and Colorado Secretaries of State, the Minnesota Secretary of State did not give complete information about the meeting.

This news story reports that Muhammud Abdurrahman, who was duly elected by the voters on November 8, voted for Bernie Sanders. He was then told to leave the table at which electors sit. He complied, and his seat was taken by an alternate, who voted for Hillary Clinton.

The only clue in the Secretary of State’s press release that something unusual happened is at the bottom. The Secretary’s list of alternate electors is missing any entry for the fifth district. That is because it was the fifth district alternate who took the place of the original elector.

Colorado Secretary of State Promulgates Regulations on Presidential Electors

Posted on by December 22, 2016
8

On December 19, the very day the electoral college voted, the Colorado Secretary of State set forth new regulations on how the meeting of the presidential electors in his state is to operate. The new regulations include the wording of an oath that each elector must take, or he or she won’t be recognized.

The new regulations were issued after a state court ruled that the Secretary of State could not enforce the new oath without a new regulation. See this story for more details about what happened on December 19 in Denver.

Two California State Senators Say They Will Introduce Bill to Bar Presidential Candidates from Ballot who Don’t Release Income Tax Returns

Posted on by December 20, 2016
4

California State Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) say in this press release that they will soon introduce a bill to bar presidential candidates from the ballot who don’t release their federal income tax returns before the primary or election. Such a bill would plainly violate the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995 in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton. Thanks to Carla Marinucci for this news.