Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College

Supreme Court rules \
Supreme Court rules \'faithless electors\' can\'t go rogue at Electoral College  

WASHINGTON -- The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous decision in the "faithless elector" case was a defeat for advocates of changing the Electoral College, who hoped a win would force a shift in the method of electing presidents toward a nationwide popular vote. But it was a win for state election officials who feared that empowering rogue electors would cause chaos.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution gives states far-reaching authority over choosing presidential electors. That includes the power to set conditions on an elector's appointment, "that is to say, what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect."

What's more, she wrote, "nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits states from taking away president electors' voting discretion." The ruling aligns with "the trust of a nation that here, We the People rule," Kagan said.

The November general election is not actually a direct vote for the presidential candidates. Voters instead choose a slate of electors appointed in their states by the political parties. Those electors meet in December to cast their ballots, which are counted during a joint session of Congress in January.

The court's opinion said presidential electors must act as their states require, which in most of the nation means voting for the candidate who won the popular vote in their states. In Maine and Nebraska, presidential electors are guided by the votes of congressional districts.

If the court had ruled the other way, then individual electors who decided to vote as they wished in a close race could potentially have the power decide who wins.

Four "faithless electors" from Colorado and Washington state who did not conform to the popular vote in the 2016 election sued, claiming that states can regulate only how electors are chosen, not what comes later.

Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig, who advocates Electoral College reform, told the court that nothing in the Constitution gives states any authority to restrict how an elector can vote, because they act in a federal role when meeting as the Electoral College.

Instead of voting for Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in Colorado, Micheal Baca cast his vote for John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio. And in Washington state, where Clinton also won the popular vote, three of the state's 12 electors voted for Colin Powell, the former secretary of state.

Lessig said on Monday that he was pleaded with the timing of the court's decision, but not the result.

"When we launched these cases, we did it because, regardless of the outcome, it was critical to resolve this question before it created a constitutional crisis. We have achieved that," he said. "Obviously, we don't believe the court has interpreted the Constitution correctly. But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective: This uncertainty has been removed. That is progress."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by the results of the popular vote. But the justices had never before said whether it is constitutional to enforce those pledges.

Lessig said he hoped the controversy would encourage more states to adopt a system in which they would assign all of their electors to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote for president.

More than a dozen states have signed an interstate agreement to make the change. It would take effect once the participating states represent at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to be elected president.


More Related News

U.S. Supreme Court allows easing of Rhode Island voting restrictions
U.S. Supreme Court allows easing of Rhode Island voting restrictions
  • US
  • 2020-08-13 15:42:47Z

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place a lower-court ruling that relaxes voting restrictions in Rhode Island during the coronavirus pandemic. The justices rejected an emergency request made by the Republican National Committee and the state's Republican Party. The unsigned order left intact a decision by Rhode Island-based U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy, who ruled on July 30 that the Republican groups had waited too late to intervene in the case.

Federal appeals court: Male-only draft is constitutional
Federal appeals court: Male-only draft is constitutional
  • World
  • 2020-08-13 15:21:29Z

A federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld the constitutionality of the all-male military draft system Thursday, citing a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In a decision that overturned a 2019 ruling by a Texas-based federal judge, a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said "only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent." The case was argued in March and was the result of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men and two men challenging the male-only draft.

Ex-Soldier Booted over Child Molestation Conviction Asks Supreme Court to Intervene
Ex-Soldier Booted over Child Molestation Conviction Asks Supreme Court to Intervene
  • US
  • 2020-08-12 13:46:33Z

He was booted from service five months before retirement for a child molestation conviction 10 years before.

Feds get more time to weigh Boston Marathon bomber appeal
Feds get more time to weigh Boston Marathon bomber appeal
  • US
  • 2020-08-12 12:54:33Z

A federal appeals court has agreed to give prosecutors another month to decide their next step after the court tossed Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's death sentence. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week said prosecutors can have until Sept. 14 to file a petition asking the full court to rehear the case. Prosecutors asked for more time to decide whether to ask the court to reconsider the case, saying the process "in a case of this magnitude" requires input "from various components within the Department of Justice."

Supreme Court blocks path to Oregon redistricting ballot measure
Supreme Court blocks path to Oregon redistricting ballot measure
  • US
  • 2020-08-11 16:56:57Z

The justices granted a request by Oregon officials to put on hold a July 10 injunction by U.S. District Judge Michael McShane in Eugene that had ordered the state to reduce the number of signatures needed to place the measure on the November ballot amid the coronavirus pandemic. Two of the nine justices, liberals Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said they would have left the lower court's order in place. The drawing of electoral districts in Oregon currently is carried out by the state legislature.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply


Top News: Asia