The Uniform Law Commission, which has existed since 1892, is weighing whether it should back a proposed state law that would tell presidential electors that they must vote for their party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees, when those electors vote in December of presidential election years. The Commission held its first meeting on this proposal in July 2009 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The second meeting will be in Chicago, December 4-5.

For those who are interested in this process, see this web page, which has the Commission’s draft proposal, and the memorandum prepared by Professor Robert Bennett, who is an expert on the electoral college, and also a list of the committee members who are considering the proposal. The proposal says that if an elector votes against his or her party’s national convention choices for President or Vice-President, the elector is deemed to have resigned, and shall be replaced by the other electors. The proposal is based on a North Carolina law.

The Uniform Law Commission has a transcript of the remarks made on this subject at the Santa Fe meeting, but it prefers not to post the transcript. However, at that meeting, there was a lively discussion as to whether there is a role for independent judgment for presidential electors. Commissioners discussed the usefulness of giving independent judgment to presidential electors in various situations. One of those situations concerned what electors should do if a presidential or vice-presidential candidate dies after the November election but before the mid-December vote of the electoral college. Another situation discussed was what electors should do if a presidential or vice-presidential nominee became seriously ill during that period. Still another situation was what electors should do if it were revealed after the November election, but before the electoral college meets, that one of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates was revealed to have a major character flaw during that period. The discussion in Chicago in December will probably be very interesting. Uniform Law Commission meetings are open to the public.

On October 6, Raymond B. Harding, former leader of the New York Liberal Party, plead guilty to receiving $800,000 from a state pension fund, in exchange for favors done for New York state’s former Controller. See this New York Times story. The Liberal Party went off the ballot in November 2002, after having been on every statewide ballot in the state starting in 1944. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

On October 5, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Greenwell v Parsley, no. 08-1328. The case had arisen in Bullitt County, Kentucky, in 2005, when the Sheriff read in the newspapers that one of his Deputies intended to run against him in 2006. The Sheriff was a Democrat and his deputy was a Republican. The sheriff fired the Deputy, and the Deputy sued, but lost in both U.S. District Court and in the 6th Circuit.

The 6th circuit had issued a similar opinion in 1997, Carver v Dennis. In that decision, the 6th Circuit had said, “The First Amendment does not require that an official in an employer’s situation nourish a viper in the nest.” The more recent Greenwell 6th circuit decision is only five pages long because it depends on the 1997 precedent. However, six other Circuits had ruled that government employees cannot be fired just because they declare their candidacy for public office, so it was reasonable to assume that the U.S. Supreme Court might take Greenwell v Parsley to settle the split in the Circuits. But, the Court did not take the case. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.