It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.
The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:
However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional (emphasis added).
The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.
The Supreme Court determined that electors in the Electoral College have the right to be faithless electors.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Profusion
They don't need to be forced.
The electors in each state are a pre-chosen, pre-published, list of fervent party members.
They will be excited about the opportunity to play a part, even a ceremonial one, in the victory of their preferred candidate.
Nothing short of a gun being held against their heads is going to persuade them to vote the opposite way.
If you are a Democrat, just put yourself in the place of a Democrat elector.
Why would you need forcing to be faithful to your state's Democrat choice?
And why do you think any Republican elector would want to be faithless? They won't do it. You know that, if you take time to think it through.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
Who is being forced to do anything against their will?
originally posted by: TrueBrit
But I ask again, who is ACTUALLY forcing anyone to do anything?
originally posted by: ezramullins
Do you write this qrap for fun or are you a pinko agitator?