Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Tribe: Trump may be preparing to have red state legislatures declare election results invalid [View all]Thekaspervote
(35,820 posts)55. Ummmm
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/faithless-electors-supreme-court/index.html
The Supreme"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," she added. Court said Monday that states can punish members of the Electoral College who break a pledge to vote for a state's popular vote winner in presidential elections.
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 wrote.
"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," she added.
Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson told the justices that since the creation of the Electoral College, there have only been 165 faithless electors representing less than 1% of the Electoral College votes cast for president. Of those, 71 changed their vote in 1872 and 1912 because the candidate they pledged their vote for died.
"The scattered examples that remain have been largely symbolic gestures with no chance of impacting results," Ferguson said, adding that "over the last century, no elector for a winning presidential candidate has switched votes to the losing candidate."
Also https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx
Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:
States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors
Alabama Mississippi
Alaska
Montana
Arizona Nebraska
California Nevada
Colorado New Mexico
Connecticut North Carolina
Delaware Oklahoma
District of Columbia Ohio
Florida Oregon
Hawaii South Carolina
Indiana Tennessee
Maine Vermont
Maryland Virginia
Massachusetts Washington
Michigan Wisconsin
Minnesota Wyoming
Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.
The Supreme"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," she added. Court said Monday that states can punish members of the Electoral College who break a pledge to vote for a state's popular vote winner in presidential elections.
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 wrote.
"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," she added.
Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson told the justices that since the creation of the Electoral College, there have only been 165 faithless electors representing less than 1% of the Electoral College votes cast for president. Of those, 71 changed their vote in 1872 and 1912 because the candidate they pledged their vote for died.
"The scattered examples that remain have been largely symbolic gestures with no chance of impacting results," Ferguson said, adding that "over the last century, no elector for a winning presidential candidate has switched votes to the losing candidate."
Also https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx
Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:
States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors
Alabama Mississippi
Alaska
Montana
Arizona Nebraska
California Nevada
Colorado New Mexico
Connecticut North Carolina
Delaware Oklahoma
District of Columbia Ohio
Florida Oregon
Hawaii South Carolina
Indiana Tennessee
Maine Vermont
Maryland Virginia
Massachusetts Washington
Michigan Wisconsin
Minnesota Wyoming
Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
76 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Tribe: Trump may be preparing to have red state legislatures declare election results invalid [View all]
highplainsdem
Jul 2020
OP
The premier constitutional authority in the country thinks this might happen...
First Speaker
Jul 2020
#24
No kidding. Just look at NC's legislature - GOP side. Bunch of malicious sociopaths. n/t
CousinIT
Jul 2020
#49
At the moment it's looking like Biden will win a few that have red legislatures and governors.
unblock
Jul 2020
#8
But MI law states That the SOS certifies the vote and appoints electors
Fiendish Thingy
Jul 2020
#63
You might want to read the Wikipedia page on the hacking. Long but informative.
delisen
Jul 2020
#56
You might want to read the Wikipedia page on the hacking. Long but informative.
delisen
Jul 2020
#57
I don't believe it was debunked. FBI was still investigating up until Barr got in.
delisen
Jul 2020
#50
I don't know if I understand the hypothetical scheme presented but I looked it up
Sugarcoated
Jul 2020
#13
Well, yeah. But it helps to have someone of Tribe's stature point it out starkly. nt
Hekate
Jul 2020
#3
I think you R right! I like Tribe, buy look at his twitter posts. There's some pretty far out stuff
Thekaspervote
Jul 2020
#28
Dumb as he is, I think Trump knows full well he has no authority to do this.
NYC Liberal
Jul 2020
#45
It is important to run ads to inform people Trump is planning on ignoring the will of the people.
Doodley
Jul 2020
#23
It would be risky for any red Governor to consider that type of action in a swing state.
LiberalFighter
Jul 2020
#32
+1000. Duecy in AZ is good example. Phoenix has a dem mayor, Tucson is no longer red red
Thekaspervote
Jul 2020
#46
Two principles at play: 1) Trump is a cheat and 2) GOP tries to hold power by whatever means
andym
Jul 2020
#35
Not enough of them would. As pointed out, Baker in MA, Hogan in MD and others.
Thekaspervote
Jul 2020
#44
Governors would be going directly against a SCOTUS ruling to send electors that did not
Thekaspervote
Jul 2020
#48
Unlikely the R legislatures in Mi, Wi, and PA have the votes to override a veto by D governors
Kaleva
Jul 2020
#51
Malarkey- MI SOS certifies election and appoints electors- legislature has no role.
Fiendish Thingy
Jul 2020
#61
It's now evident that Putin doesn't believe he'll be able to get Trump re-elected.
C Moon
Jul 2020
#62
If Trump or "red states" try any crap like this there will be millions of people in the streets.
CaptainTruth
Jul 2020
#71