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

Thekaspervote

(35,820 posts)
55. Ummmm
Thu Jul 30, 2020, 05:00 PM
Jul 2020
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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This is pure alarmism Wanderlust988 Jul 2020 #1
Trump and Trumpism now own the GOP. All bets are off. Hekate Jul 2020 #4
THIS Initech Jul 2020 #76
Sadly that's not the case unblock Jul 2020 #6
Agree. octoberlib Jul 2020 #7
I have to agree!! Such spin Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #19
The premier constitutional authority in the country thinks this might happen... First Speaker Jul 2020 #24
No one disagrees he knows his constitutional law! Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #37
No kidding. Just look at NC's legislature - GOP side. Bunch of malicious sociopaths. n/t CousinIT Jul 2020 #49
Why does Trump deserve the benefit of the doubt? uponit7771 Jul 2020 #40
these are alarming times CatWoman Jul 2020 #41
do not underestimate the lawlessness of don j trump spanone Jul 2020 #43
You mean the Republican legislatures that refused to expand Medicaid Azathoth Jul 2020 #47
You obviously don't know Texas Republican politicians. Dustlawyer Jul 2020 #66
+1 K&R onetexan Jul 2020 #68
Have you been asleep edhopper Jul 2020 #74
Don't we usually lose red states anyway? LOL nt Quixote1818 Jul 2020 #2
At the moment it's looking like Biden will win a few that have red legislatures and governors. unblock Jul 2020 #8
Better check that list again moose65 Jul 2020 #14
Thanks unblock Jul 2020 #22
But MI law states That the SOS certifies the vote and appoints electors Fiendish Thingy Jul 2020 #63
it will vary state by state unblock Jul 2020 #69
This looks promising, then: moose65 Jul 2020 #75
No we don't normally lose Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and michigan. The votes were triron Jul 2020 #9
Are you suggesting that actual votes were changed? PTWB Jul 2020 #12
it was (nt) stopdiggin Jul 2020 #16
The votes were social media hacked. LiberalFighter Jul 2020 #30
Hacking is something specific. PTWB Jul 2020 #31
You'll never change their minds... brooklynite Jul 2020 #38
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
Sure, provide a link! PTWB Jul 2020 #70
No just votes suppressed and that was enough uponit7771 Jul 2020 #42
I don't believe it was debunked. FBI was still investigating up until Barr got in. delisen Jul 2020 #50
This would include FL, GA, AZ, OH and others which are in play SoonerPride Jul 2020 #10
I don't know if I understand the hypothetical scheme presented but I looked it up Sugarcoated Jul 2020 #13
NC has a Democratic governor moose65 Jul 2020 #17
Yep, true Sugarcoated Jul 2020 #20
MA (Charlie Baker) would never participate in such a scheme. smirkymonkey Jul 2020 #26
Nor would hogan in Maryland Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #39
Well, yeah. But it helps to have someone of Tribe's stature point it out starkly. nt Hekate Jul 2020 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author StarfishSaver Jul 2020 #5
With friends like this, . . . elleng Jul 2020 #11
Trump says some really stupid and outrageous stopdiggin Jul 2020 #15
+1000 Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #27
Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst. Vote like your life depends on it. C_U_L8R Jul 2020 #18
You Know, PBO JUst Said At The Funeral Me. Jul 2020 #21
I think it would anger more people into voting against Trump. Doodley Jul 2020 #25
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
I'd LIke To Take Credit Me. Jul 2020 #34
Dumb as he is, I think Trump knows full well he has no authority to do this. NYC Liberal Jul 2020 #45
Exactly What "The" President Said Me. Jul 2020 #59
EGGS-ACTLY This! n/t MFGsunny Jul 2020 #73
It is important to run ads to inform people Trump is planning on ignoring the will of the people. Doodley Jul 2020 #23
True Regarding The Margin Me. Jul 2020 #36
Don't think this is realistic Zorro Jul 2020 #29
Yep! Not all of them would be safe from repercussions. LiberalFighter Jul 2020 #33
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
3) They can't win a fair fight. mac56 Jul 2020 #65
Governors would be going directly against a SCOTUS ruling to send electors that did not Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #48
Actually, the ruling says the exact opposite Azathoth Jul 2020 #53
Ummmm Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #55
Unlikely the R legislatures in Mi, Wi, and PA have the votes to override a veto by D governors Kaleva Jul 2020 #51
Exactly! Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #52
Well, we could just kick them out of the Union, then, I suppose. nt coti Jul 2020 #54
By posting this you're just playing into their hands. PoindexterOglethorpe Jul 2020 #58
Thank you!! A voice of sanity Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #60
Thank you. PoindexterOglethorpe Jul 2020 #67
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
The Bolivian coup government has cancelled elections three times GETPLANING Jul 2020 #64
If Trump or "red states" try any crap like this there will be millions of people in the streets. CaptainTruth Jul 2020 #71
he's already done worse and will continue. With 4 years of treachery, wiggs Jul 2020 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tribe: Trump may be prepa...»Reply #55