Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters

[CousinIT]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: CNN

(CNN)The Supreme Court said Monday that states can punish members of the Electoral College who fail to fulfill a pledge to vote for a state's popular vote winner in presidential elections.

The case comes as the election season is heating up and the Electoral College will once again be front and center in an increasingly polarized and volatile political atmosphere.

In 2016, 10 of the 538 presidential electors went rogue, attempting to vote for someone other than their pledged candidate. In all, 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws that are meant to discourage faithless electors. But until 2016, no state had ever actually punished or removed an elector because of his or her vote.

The vote count was 9-0.

"Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so," Justice Elena Kagan said.

Three presidential electors in Washington state, for example, voted for Colin Powell in 2016 rather than Hillary Clinton and one voted for anti-Keystone XL pipeline protester Faith Spotted Eagle. A $1,000 fine was upheld by the state Supreme Court.


Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/faithless-electors-supreme-court/index.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. duplicate thread of

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142530785

[Bev54]

6. Not really

That was MAY this is done.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. No. Both have dateline July 6, 2020; is not May. Duplicate. . . . nt

[Bev54]

14. I am not stating the date

but the article said "may" (it was waiting for an update) the new one is a done deal

[PoliticAverse]

16. The "may" refers to what the states have the option to do, not what the decision "may be".

The decision means states may (or may not) force electors to vote for a specific candidate.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Yes, it's the same thing (same Supreme Court case). n/t

[NurseJackie]

2. Only $1000? It should cost more than that... it should HURT!

Twenty years in prison, perhaps?

[flibbitygiblets]

5. +1 Oh gee, you caused us to have a psychopath for a president. $1000 ought to cover the damages.

[bluevoter4life]

3. Just another reason to do away with the archaic EC.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Where did the Founders expect to find wise men perpetually for every state?

The idea wasn't that they were to be partisan. It was that they were to safeguard the common good and the long term best interest.

But you know, they missed parties too. They thought them "factions" and would not come to dominate politics.

[mpcamb]

13. Know a strategy for ridding the system of the EC? Court case? Via the states?

Many, maybe most people don't like the EC.
It's like belling the cat though. How do you do it?

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. The choice should be clear...BIDEN for the EC win.

Should Joe Biden win states with a resounding number of votes over Trump in states, the choice shoild be clear who the next President is. There is nothing Trump can do because the US Supreme Court decided that the Electors go with the winner in that state.

[Bluepinky]

11. All the Repugs can do now is to suppress the vote and rig the numbers.

And you better believe they’re pursuing both fronts at full speed.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

15. Stacey Abrams and her group is working hard to counter that....

By making sure people have their registrations current, IDs current, etc.

Republicans suppressing the vote like they are only exposes them for the FRAUDS they are and we need to get that message out however we can.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Duplicate of thread you could have easily found in LBN column on Home page

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

12. Nullify the vote?

I am curious if this ruling would allow states to pass laws that nullify the votes of faithless electors. Those that voted for Powell or the Spotted Eagle would have had their vote explicitly not count.

Or the faithless votes would automatically be changed to the winner of the popular vote. I suppose this could easily lead to the votes automatically be given to the winner of the popular ballot with no need for electors.

The difference is that with electors still in the mix, even with limited or no choices, it might be constitutional.

Just a thought.

[JudyM]

17. Locking.

Dupe of https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142530785
Please continue discussion in that thread.