Supreme Court rules states can punish "faithless electors" who buck popular vote

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Banjo, Jul 6, 2020.

  1. Banjo

    Banjo

  2. elderado

    elderado

    Good. Like a giant zit, it needed to get cleared up before November.

    Next?
     
  3. ...Both cases before the high court involved faithless electors who were appointed as presidential electors after Democrats Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine won the popular vote for president and vice president in their respective states. The electors pledged to vote for those candidates, but did not do so when they met to cast their electoral ballots.

    The case out of Washington involved three electors who were fined $1,000 each in accordance with state law after they cast their electoral ballots for former Secretary of State Colin Powell for president, rather than Clinton. But they challenged the penalties, arguing they were unconstitutional.

    The Washington Supreme Court ruled against them and upheld the sanctions.

    The legal fight out of Colorado, meanwhile, involved three presidential electors, including one who attempted to cast his electoral ballot for former Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican, though Clinton won the state's popular vote. The elector, Michael Baca, was replaced.

    Baca and the two other electors challenged Colorado's law that binds them to the outcome of the popular vote, arguing it is unconstitutional. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Baca, ruling he should not have been removed as a presidential elector, as the Constitution suggests electors "are free to vote as they choose in the Electoral College."

    The Supreme Court was urged to act swiftly on the respective appeals, saying the timing — before the presidential election — presented a unique opportunity for the justices to weigh in without fear of being accused of issuing a decision that could be viewed as favoring one candidate.
    .