*Neal Katyal to discuss Supreme's decision re: 'electors,' Lawrence show.

[elleng]

[Cha]

1. Thanks.. what was the decision?.. I've been looking

for it on and off. Someone posted it wasn't good for trump.. in so many words.

[elleng]

2. The court said states may require members of the Electoral College to vote

for the presidential candidates they had promised to support.

. . .the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday, curbing the independence of electors and limiting one potential source of uncertainty in the 2020 presidential election.

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring electors to vote as they had promised, but recent court decisions had come to opposite conclusions about whether electors may disregard their pledges.

The Supreme Court resolved the dispute on Monday in a pair of cases concerning electors in Washington State and Colorado, by saying that states are entitled to remove or punish electors who changed their votes. In states without such penalties, electors remain free to change their votes.

“The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for president,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for seven members of the court

Election law scholars welcomed the ruling.>

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/electoral-college-supreme-court.html?

[Cha]

3. Wow.. Unanimously! Thank you, Ellen!

[elleng]

4. Yes!

NOW storm here, DirecTV signal loss, so have to watch/listen later!