From USA Today:
“Supreme Court rules presidential
electors can be forced to uphold popular vote”
The Supreme Court addressed one
of many potential problems facing the 2020 race for the White House Monday,
ruling that states can block members of the Electoral College from ignoring the
popular vote on Election Day – and risk altering the course of history. The
unanimous decision will prevent most of the 538 presidential electors from
seeking to upend the results of the presidential race when carrying out their
ministerial duties a month after the election. Thirty-two states already
require the people chosen on Election Day to cast ballots for the winner of
their states' popular vote. In some of those states, rogue electors can be
replaced or fined. Eighteen states have no such requirement. The court ruled in
cases from Washington and Colorado, where challenges to the rules for
presidential electors resulted in opposite lower court rulings. "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," Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in an
opinion that name-dropped Alexander Hamilton and the TV series
"Veep." In the Washington case, she said, "the state instructs
its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its
citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution – as well as with the
trust of a nation that here, We the People rule." During the last oral
argument of the court's current term in May, justices on both sides of the
ideological aisle expressed concern that electors could be bribed, particularly
by the losing party in a close election. But they also expressed concern about
the limits of state powers to force electors' hands. One thing they knew: Failure to act could put
the nation in a bind if a razor-thin margin in November gives electors inordinate
power to upend the election. Never before has this happened, but 10 electors
were disloyal or tried to be in 2016, enough to change the results of five
previous presidential elections. The
2020 race already faces unusual challenges. Many states are seeking to expand
voting by mail in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. President Donald Trump
has forced Republicans to move his convention speechfrom North Carolina to
Florida. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has warned that Trump might
try to steal the election or refuse to leave office. Washington's Supreme Court
last year upheld $1,000 fines against three Democratic electors who cast votes
in December 2016 for Colin Powell rather than Hillary Clinton. Their immediate
goal was to deny Trump the presidency by convincing electors to choose a
different Republican candidate. Their broader goal: calling attention to
problems with the Electoral College, which that gave the Oval Office to Trump
in 2016 and to George W. Bush in 2000, though both lost the popular vote. "Make
no mistake: laws binding electors are not a cure-all. They can go haywire in
unexpected situations, and presidential electors remain free to choose in
eighteen states," said one of the attorneys representing state electors,
Jason Harrow. He and Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor and
founder of the election reform group Equal Citizens who also argued the case at
the Supreme Court, announced Monday the launch of a new campaign to
"fix" the Electoral College. One potential outcome, they said, would
be to increase support for the National Popular Vote Compact, which seeks to
get state electors to support the winner of the U.S. popularr vote. Fifteen
liberal-leaning states and the District of Columbia have endorsed the concept. Differing
with Washington's Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
ruled that a rogue vote cast by a Democratic elector in Colorado for Republican
John Kasich rather than Clinton deserved to be counted. The Supreme Court decided in January to hear
both appeals, lest it be forced to intervene in a potential emergency situation
after Election Day. Under the Constitution, each state appoints electors to
cast the electoral ballots. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia
require them to vote for the winner of the popular vote. Some block
nonconforming ballots from being counted or replace electors who don't toe the
line. A few states provide for criminal penalties. Paul Smith, vice president of the Campaign
Legal Center, applauded the high court's decision. "Voters should go to
the polls with the confidence that their vote will count and that their
political system will be free from corruption," he said. "However far
from perfect the current system may be, the chaos of an unbound Electoral
College would have been even worse."
^ This should have been brought before the Supreme Court and decided on decades ago. While the Electoral College is confusing and many people don’t see a need for it in today’s world while it continues we needed a decision like this one to firmly clarify that every single Elector in every single State has to pick whichever candidate that wind the Popular Vote within their State. That means: If Candidate Z wins the Popular Vote in State # 1 then every Elector in State # 1 has to back Candidate Z. They can’t decide to go against the will of the residents in their State and pick anyone else. ^
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.