Elector Revolts Against Trump Stubbed Out by Federal Judge

[mystery-ak]

Newsmax
Elector Revolts Against Trump Stubbed Out by Federal Judge
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 07:40 AM

By: Newsmax Wires

Longshot plans in Colorado and elsewhere to deny Donald Trump the presidency through the Electoral College were dealt a severe setback on Monday after a federal judge refused to suspend a law requiring electors to vote for the presidential candidate who won the state in November.

U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel denied a request by two Colorado electors who contended that the law binding their vote to Colorado vote winner Hillary Clinton violated their First Amendment rights and the intents of the Constitution's framers, reported The Associated Press. The electors had sought the right to vote for someone other than Clinton in order to unite behind a consensus Republican other than Trump when the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19.

more
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/donald-trump-elector-revolts/2016/12/13/id/763605/

[jmyrlefuller]

Actually, beforehand, such suits are meaningless; they can only be filed if the electors actually have been wronged, which means not until after the election.

So, for instance, if a faithless elector against Trump has his vote cast for Trump anyway under these laws, then he can sue. He can also defend himself in criminal court if penalties are levied against him (or her).

[Suppressed]

While the laws punishing electors for exercising judgment goes against the original intent, I don't know that federal judges would be eager to support that.  On the issue of state laws that required electors to pledge their vote, they punted and said it was a state issue.  The question of actually punishing electors, however, is still open.

[Oceander]

Actually, beforehand, such suits are meaningless; they can only be filed if the electors actually have been wronged, which means not until after the election.

So, for instance, if a faithless elector against Trump has his vote cast for Trump anyway under these laws, then he can sue. He can also defend himself in criminal court if penalties are levied against him (or her).

If the First Amendment is involved, then the issue of prior restraint might give them standing, to begin with.  Also, if allowing the statute to be enforced would cause irreparable harm for which no adequate remedy existed, then they might have standing for a preliminary injunction, which would get the issues into court

[geronl]

Most electors can cast their ballots how they wish and will.