It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electoral College member files lawsuit to block Donald Trump presidency

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Democrat Vinz Koller of California is the 10th Presidential elector to join the anti-Trump club, and is trying to overturn a law that will force him to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the popular vote in his state. A similar action was filed in Colorado days earlier.

The aim of the suit, Politico reports, is to undermine such rules in 29 states across the country, including in areas where Republican electors have voiced concerns about Mr Trump.

Mr Koller's lawsuit argues that the US founding fathers intended electors to have free choice in how they voted.

LINK



www.youtube.com...

I believe it is illegal to attempt to force someone to vote a certain way for POTUS. The main crux of the argument stems from 42 USC 1971. The relevant part of this law says:


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 Supreme Court determined that electors in the Electoral College have the right to be faithless electors.


The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair[8] 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).[8]

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."[9]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

SOURCE


Regardless of the above, it's nonsensical to force someone to vote a certain way in any election. If someone votes under coercion and duress and against their own free will, their vote is void.
edit on 12-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Im pretty sure that electors are ruled by state law, not Federal, so 50% more or less must vote state results


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

These guys can either ensure Trump is made President or start picking out their headstones. That's the only decision they get to make.
edit on 12-12-2016 by StudColt because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
They should just do away with the electors if they can't follow through with the will of the people in their state. Just make the Electoral votes a given. If you win a state then however many electoral votes it's worth are yours. First to 270 wins. No need for another election a month later.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

But the electoral college members accept the position of elector and presumably sign some form stating they will adhere to the rules set forth by their State don't they?

Agreeing to an arrangement knowing it might not work out the way you want and then trying to scam out of it when it happens is a scumbaggy thing to do.

Which I guess is par for the course in American politics.

edit on 12-12-2016 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: StudColt




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


Vinz Koller of California is ........trying to overturn a law that will force him to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the popular vote in his state.


THIS is one of the things that irks me in this world. In this case it happens to be about an election but you see it all over the place. Presumably Vinz knew what the rules/laws were prior to becoming a Presidential elector. He knew it then and took the position (and responsibility) and since he didn't care for the overall outcome, he wants to change it.

It reminds me of people that knowingly accept a job for a private company that has strict dress codes... then complains that they can't grow a Mohawk or a stupid hipster beard.

It reminds me of people that knowingly purchase a home in an area where, say, you aren't allowed to have a fence in the front yard... then b-tch and complain that they can't put a fence up.

What the heck is WRONG with people?!?!?!?


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22


What the heck is WRONG with people?!?!?!?


Entitlement and education......maybe vaccines.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

"Of California" Who cares? He was going to vote for Clinton anyways.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
him and people like him dont like the outcome.....so now they try and change it..

l..o..l



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I don't think these people are thinking this through... they are just reacting to this particular situation. This is covered by the 10th Amendment. The states have the power to enforce their own laws as it pertains to their electors. If the particular electors do not like it, they are free to move to a state where the rules are more in line with their beliefs, or they can work to change their state's laws.

The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair[8] 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.

Pretty straight forward, regardless of what Justice Jackson felt about it after being on the losing side of the determination.

I agree with FauxMulder... just do away with the electors then if they cannot follow the will of the people they are representing.

We do NOT need a democracy, TYVM. That way lies madness and badness.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
This is all part of the Left Wing onslaught to usurp the Constitution.

This new thing must be "Plan C" by now since their past attempts have all failed.




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Profusion

"Of California" Who cares? He was going to vote for Clinton anyways.



I was thinking that too.
Those votes were going Clinton anyways.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion
This strategy will only work if there are hundreds of Republican electors across the country, who are just itching for a chance to vote for Hillary, if only the laws of their state will allow them.
If the man thinks that, he's really living in a dream world.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: Profusion

I don't think these people are thinking this through... they are just reacting to this particular situation. This is covered by the 10th Amendment. The states have the power to enforce their own laws as it pertains to their electors.


It looks to me like the Supreme Court decided the exact opposite of that in the same case you just referenced.

"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."
SOURCE

If the promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable, then any laws pertaining to them are void in my opinion. Do you agree?

a reply to: DISRAELI

If the courts decide that the state laws we're discussing are legally unenforceable, then the laws will no longer be an issue going forward. What if Trump is reelected in 2020 and an Electoral College mutiny is successful then? This court case could be very significant in future elections.
edit on 12-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Isn't the got dang Electoral College the ones that essentially got Trump in? I mean it is the Electoral College.. Dang hillbillies.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
If the courts decide that the state laws we're discussing are legally unenforceable, then the laws will no longer be an issue going forward.

Changing the law does nothing to get past the psychological barrier.
A man who puts himself forward to be an elector for a party is almost by definition a man who is keen to vote for that party's candidate.
You won't get faithless electors just by giving them permission to be faithless; you have to find people who want to be faithless, and they're not going to appear by magic.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
As far as I know at this point there are 8 democratic electors that are going to, or at least are trying to cast a protest vote and instead of voting for Clinton are going to vote for a republican like Kasich.

There is one EC deserter of the republican party in Texas that is going to vote for a write in of Kasich or another republican.

I have not heard of any others. And I don't think it will matter in the long run. If they were remotely able to get enough so that Trump only got 269 electoral votes it would then go to the House for the choosing of the President. Since it is a Republican majority they will then choose Trump for the 3rd and final win of the 2016 presidential election season.

All this distraction won't amount to a difference in the outcome. It is yet another way to give liberals hope and ultimately destroy that hope again. Liberals are causing the weakest of their supporters to suffer repeatedly a prolonged defeat.


edit on 12/12/16 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Mere DOZENS of Electors works just fine.
No need to influence hundreds.

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ganjoa
Even so- is it very plausible that electors who have volunteered to represent one party will have much interest in voting for the other party's candidate?
Unless they have been deliberately planted by the opposite party like "moles" in a spy novel? ("Johnson, we want you to spend the next twenty years pretending to be a Republican. Then, when they make you an elector, you can vote for our guy instead")







 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join