Supreme Court rules states can sanction or remove ‘faithless' presidential electors

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court rules states can sanction or remove ‘faithless' presidential electors

The high court upheld state laws requiring those chosen for the Electoral College to back the popular winner in their state's presidential race

By Tyler Olson, Shannon Bream | Fox News

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws requiring those chosen for the Electoral College to back the popular winner in their state's presidential race, a rebuke of a group of so-called "faithless" presidential electors in Washington and Colorado who sued after they were sanctioned for voting contrary to pledges they took before becoming electors.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court said that those sanctions -- in Washington a fine and in Colorado being removed and replaced as an elector -- are constitutional.

The cases come after a group of Democratic electors that called themselves the "Hamilton Electors" voted for moderate Republicans instead of Hillary Clinton in 2016, in an unsuccessful effort to convince Republican electors to vote for somebody besides President Trump.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-states-can-enforce-elector-pledges

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

9-0.

I think that pretty much settles it.

The fine was like $1000 or something ridiculous though. Seems easy to get around.

[EdinVA]

Great news...

[catfish1957]

9-0?

I didn't think you could even get a 9-0 ruling on the sun was shining or not. 

[Fishrrman]

source:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/505984-supreme-court-rules-states-can-remove-faithless-electors

From the hill (of all places):
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by their voters."

Granted, the text quoted above is from the hill's writer (and not from the Supreme Court opinion itself), but -- I predict this decision will eventually torpedo the "National Popular Vote" compact between the states (when that case finally reaches The Court, which will happen someday).

If it is unacceptable and prohibited for members of the Electoral College to "disregard the voters" insofar as "casting their ballots" is concerned, I predict The Court will find that it's ALSO unacceptable and prohibited for THE STATES to do the same.

That is to say, the states will not be permitted to change the choice of the voters by virtue of a "compact" created with other states. This choice of the voters must stand regardless of what the Constitution may say about how states choose their electors.

The voters' choice must be penultimate.

BOTH sides of The Court seem in agreement -- a 9-0 ruling!

[FeelNoPain]

All well and good, but enough with the undercard.

Need that Main Event: THE TRUMP TAXES DECISION!!! 

[Free Vulcan]

source:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/505984-supreme-court-rules-states-can-remove-faithless-electors

From the hill (of all places):
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by their voters."

Granted, the text quoted above is from the hill's writer (and not from the Supreme Court opinion itself), but -- I predict this decision will eventually torpedo the "National Popular Vote" compact between the states (when that case finally reaches The Court, which will happen someday).

If it is unacceptable and prohibited for members of the Electoral College to "disregard the voters" insofar as "casting their ballots" is concerned, I predict The Court will find that it's ALSO unacceptable and prohibited for THE STATES to do the same.

That is to say, the states will not be permitted to change the choice of the voters by virtue of a "compact" created with other states. This choice of the voters must stand regardless of what the Constitution may say about how states choose their electors.

The voters' choice must be penultimate.

BOTH sides of The Court seem in agreement -- a 9-0 ruling!

Hmmm, interesting thinking.

Be interesting to see if an enterprising conservative lawyer can make that case.

[jmyrlefuller]

If the states (and now, by proxy the courts) can order presidential electors to vote a certain way, they can also order you to vote a certain way.