Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner (Colorado)

a reply to: smurfy

Actually the Supreme Court ruling in Ray vs. Blair (cornell Law Link) says otherwise.


Source for info below

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Court reasoned that, first of all, the federal judiciary has jurisdiction in the matter because, while state electors are not federal officers, they are performing a federal function in assisting to determine the outcome of national elections. The state has the authority to oversee them, and, in doing this, the state acts under the authority from the Federal Constitution.

Further, the Court determined that a state is within its rights to exclude, or to allow parties to exclude, potential electors on the basis of refusing to pledge to support the party's nominees. This is acceptable because it is a method of ensuring that party candidates in the general election are committed to the leadership and philosophy of the party.

Finally, the Supreme Court decided unequivocally that the Twelfth Amendment doesn't prevent parties from requiring elector candidates to take a pledge of nominee support. Further, the requirement of a pledge does not deny equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it did not address the requirement that electors must vote for their pledged candidate.

The opinion of the Court was delivered per curiam by Justice Reed.

The last section that is bolded was decided for Colorado by the federal judges ruling that says Colorado electors are required to vote for the person who won the state. Other states have similar laws so it might end up in the Supreme Court at some point. Until such time it appears that state laws can require it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, it's not--it's up to Congress to count the votes submitted from the states. It's up to states as to how they allow electoral votes to be cast and rectified if cast incorrectly.

Congress will have zero say as to what happens in Colorado concerning this guy and his electoral vote in this scenario.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

One thing we need to learn from our so call politicians, look at past administration, career politicians are good at enriching their pockets while screwing the tax payer in order to keep corporations on top.

So, this days career politicians means crap, because our nation is been looking like crap for a long time already.

I am open to a different thing and see the results, I gave Obama a chance in his first term and look what we got, crap, so is nothing wrong to give Trump a chance too.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, it's not--it's up to Congress to count the votes submitted from the states. It's up to states as to how they allow electoral votes to be cast and rectified if cast incorrectly.

Congress will have zero say as to what happens in Colorado concerning this guy and his electoral vote in this scenario.

Correct.

My point was that states don't invalidate the votes of faithless electors. Many states have penalties for not voting for the state popular winner, but the laws don't actually invalidate the rogue vote. Two states have provisions to replace a faithless elector, Minnesota & Michigan.

Congress will ultimately decide how to count the votes. They'll likely hear Objections to rogue votes when they count them and deliberate if any objections have the two requisite signatures.

Or that's my understanding.

If you have other info, please share!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe those two anti-Trump Electors in Colorado will continue to lead by example and jump off a cliff. That way they can deny Donald Trump 2 votes this coming Monday.

Are there back-up Electors, in case a primary Elector gets sick..or jumps off a cliff?

Colorado actually has 5 electors who wanted to vote for someone other than Clinton. Colorado went to Clinton so the states electors are required to vote for her and not Trump. The same holds for the faithless electors in Washington state. The 2 faithless electors from Texas were the only ones bound to Trump.

Its one of the main reasons I kept saying messing with the electoral college was not going to work as it stood at the time.

Each states have their own laws governing the replacement of electors for one reason or another. MI and MN are the only 2 states that can replace electors who refuse to vote for the person who won the state. Texas has laws where they can replace an elector before a vote.

Thank-you for that detailed explanation, Xcathdra! Are you satisfied that the overall election process is working as designed by the country's founders?

It makes me uncomfortable when modern day selfishness and lack of respect creeps into the system, like we saw with Jill Stein, and are now seeing with some of these Electors.

a reply to: carewemust

I have faith in and believe the electoral college is the right system for choosing our president. With that said it was never the intent of the founding fathers for us to have a pure democracy and it also was never the intent of the founding fathers for the electoral college to be used to nullify an election based solely on not liking a person.

We can argue qualifications until we are blue in the face however the only qualifications required are to be a natural born citizen who is 35 years of age. It was never their intent for us to have a ruling class which is why I dont put a lot of stock in the arguments that someone has to be in government for a long time to somehow qualify them to be President.

Should the electoral college electors be able to vote form whoever they wish? My thought on that is no and thats based on the Constitution leaving it to the states to decide how to run their elections. The electoral college guarantees the minority opinion is heard and taken into account by those wanting to be President.

A purely popular vote scared the hell out of the founding fathers and for good reason - Tyranny by majority. The belief that 50.1% could result in oppression of the remaining 49.9%.

We have 51 popular votes to elect our president. Each state is unique in that regard and trying to say a states votes dont matter because a candidate got an extra 2.6 million votes from another state is insane.

Hillary Clinton did not win the majority of the "popular vote" as the left likes to claim. To be able to claim a majority she would need to have won at least 50.1% and she did not. She won a plurality at 47% +/-.

Why do Democrats get bent out of shape over the popular vote? In the 5 times a person was elected in a electoral college win but a popular vote loss, all 5 winners were republicans and the losers were the democrats.

The electoral college makes its extremely hard to rig an election. Using a popular vote, on the other hand, makes it very easy to rig an election.

A lot of people dont like the electoral college system but I believe that is based on ignorance of how and why it works like it does. It was designed to make every single state in the Union count instead of just a few, like New York, California, Texas or Pennsylvania.

Democrats always seem to push for things that give them an advantage - like the popular vote or the nuclear option in the senate or encouraging Obama to use executive orders. It never occurs to them that those very "advantages" can be used by the opposition if they become the majority. Something Democrats are concerned about with a Trump win and Republicans keeping the House and Senate.

The idiocy of whats occurring is best described as the left hand not knowing what the far left hand is doing. They keep acting like they are better than everyone else and the Democratic party is done.


/end of long winded soap box.

These faithless electors on both sides are losers. Don't become an elector if one cannot do a simple job.

If Russia really wanted to influence an election and weaken the United States into possible civil war they would use agents to buy electors to vote against voters of each state.

Come to think of it, if a foreign country wanted to weaken the US government they would do the exact things Stein, the electors, Podesta, and the CIA are doing.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: smurfy

Actually the Supreme Court ruling in Ray vs. Blair (cornell Law Link) says otherwise.


Source for info below

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Court reasoned that, first of all, the federal judiciary has jurisdiction in the matter because, while state electors are not federal officers, they are performing a federal function in assisting to determine the outcome of national elections. The state has the authority to oversee them, and, in doing this, the state acts under the authority from the Federal Constitution.

Further, the Court determined that a state is within its rights to exclude, or to allow parties to exclude, potential electors on the basis of refusing to pledge to support the party's nominees. This is acceptable because it is a method of ensuring that party candidates in the general election are committed to the leadership and philosophy of the party.

Finally, the Supreme Court decided unequivocally that the Twelfth Amendment doesn't prevent parties from requiring elector candidates to take a pledge of nominee support. Further, the requirement of a pledge does not deny equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it did not address the requirement that electors must vote for their pledged candidate.

The opinion of the Court was delivered per curiam by Justice Reed.

The last section that is bolded was decided for Colorado by the federal judges ruling that says Colorado electors are required to vote for the person who won the state. Other states have similar laws so it might end up in the Supreme Court at some point. Until such time it appears that state laws can require it.

I didn't say that the states couldn't do this that or the other, read my post again.
I did say that an elector is allowed by the constitution to vote for whomever he wants, even if it goes against state law. That electors limit by the constitution is to only vote for a President and Vice President consideration by name, one of whom must be from a different state. That is the constitution's dictat...no mention of who they vote for, no mention either of political parties for that matter, because the framers didn't want that for their reasons.
So, that's what I am getting at, no Federal Supreme Court judge can honestly direct an elector to cast his/her vote for anybody other than the electoral voter's choice. All they can do is pronouce on the validity of a state to pursue that state's rulings on electoral voters....a different dimension.
Most of the American states in fact give free gratis to the the electoral voter.

Wow! In edit, I am just seeing ypur last post, yuh has been reading a bit, yes the framers didn't like democracy even a bit as I have mentioned before, however they themselves were a 'ruling class' and quite elitist unto themselves also.

originally posted by: jellyrev
These faithless electors on both sides are losers. Don't become an elector if one cannot do a simple job.

If Russia really wanted to influence an election and weaken the United States into possible civil war they would use agents to buy electors to vote against voters of each state.

Come to think of it, if a foreign country wanted to weaken the US government they would do the exact things Stein, the electors, Podesta, and the CIA are doing.

I'm still not sure how this is not the biggest news of the election, but this quote from a Politico article, dated 11/22/2016, about six 'faithless' Democratic electors should be raising HUGE red flags for everyone:

Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they're unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they'd likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.

But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

Link

See that part in bold?

The DNC actually selected electors THAT DO NOT EVEN SUPPORT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROCESS. They have the "GOAL" of seeing the electoral college abolished.

It's incredible. Electors should support the process in which they are chosen to participate. These electors do not. They want to use their positions AS ELECTORS to damage the Electoral College system.

Scary. Awful. Set up.

a reply to: smurfy

The federal court ruling in Colorado just set a precedence then.

As for the edit and new info added my bad. This is a topic near and dear to my heart and sometimes I get carried away with my responses so sorry.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
I'm still amazed this is even going on.

I didn't support Trump, but he won. And the electoral college members can be as butt hurt as they want about it, nothing is going to change the fact that Jan 20th, they are going to swear in Trump as POTUS and that's that.

If they really wanna cause a bunch of grief, they should be focusing on his nomination hearings for the positions they feel he's filled poorly.

~Tenth

the nomination hearings are an area that is coming back to bite the Democrats in the butt. Reid used the nuclear option when he was Senate majority leader by changing the votes for these positions to simple majorities from super majorities.

I am curious how much the left will freak out knowing Trump is inheriting the very same authority Obama has. They never seemed to realize that they would not be in control forever and that Republicans at some point would win majorities.

I think Reid had to do that. The Republicans were hell bent on passing their smaller government initiative by just not confirming any nominations. That goes against the spirit and intent of confirmations, it's supposed to be about the person being able to do the job, not a referendum on if that job should exist in the first place.

I would hope that eventually a Congress reverses it, but I don't see that happening for a long time.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tothetenthpower

So far the bulk of his appointments are establishment people. To be honest though we can look back on history and see where career politicians have taken us to. The founding fathers did not want a permanent ruling class. I will give Trump a chance and see what he can do with his picks and go from there.

Worst case scenario is he gets fired in 2020.

I can't wait for the commercials where his opponents are doing their best Trump impressions telling him "You're fired!".

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am confused by this.

Either electors do, or do not have the right to vote differently than the states they represent. If they do have that right, then there is a reason for their position, that of elector, to exist. If they do not, then in states where they do not, where rulings like this could be made by a judge using state legislature, then there is no reason for that position to exist, because it is impossible in those states which have such laws, for the elector to make any other choice but to follow the people.

So, in effect, there are some states where the electors decision is utterly moot, because all their electors may do is tick the box they are told to.

Now, I have no problem with that, because I believe in democracy, and it sounds to me like one small group of people, voting on behalf of a large number of people in a general election is simply undemocratic. But if the position has to exist at all, then surely it ought to exist because the mantle it places about the shoulders of those who take it up, actually has a meaning and a power to it.

Otherwise, you might as well say that when a states votes have been counted, that the matter has been settled, that there is no need for an elector to confirm the vote by adding his or her mark to it.

This ruling would seem to remove the teeth from the position of elector at the very least, and I wonder what that actually means for the future of that position.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Now, I have no problem with that, because I believe in democracy

Reference.com

Quick Answer
The purpose of the electoral college is to be a compromise between election of the president by the vote of Congress and the popular vote of the people. The founding fathers established the electoral college in the United States Constitution, believing that it would be both a buffer and provide fair power to all states regardless of size.

We are a Republic not a democracy
Here is what is causing your confusion.

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

a reply to: marg6043

I agree Marg, 100%.

I just think it's going to hurt him - process and time wise is all. Maybe for the better.

~Tenth

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Xcathdra

I am confused by this.

Either electors do, or do not have the right to vote differently than the states they represent. If they do have that right, then there is a reason for their position, that of elector, to exist. If they do not, then in states where they do not, where rulings like this could be made by a judge using state legislature, then there is no reason for that position to exist, because it is impossible in those states which have such laws, for the elector to make any other choice but to follow the people.

So, in effect, there are some states where the electors decision is utterly moot, because all their electors may do is tick the box they are told to.

Now, I have no problem with that, because I believe in democracy, and it sounds to me like one small group of people, voting on behalf of a large number of people in a general election is simply undemocratic. But if the position has to exist at all, then surely it ought to exist because the mantle it places about the shoulders of those who take it up, actually has a meaning and a power to it.

Otherwise, you might as well say that when a states votes have been counted, that the matter has been settled, that there is no need for an elector to confirm the vote by adding his or her mark to it.

This ruling would seem to remove the teeth from the position of elector at the very least, and I wonder what that actually means for the future of that position.

There are different rules for different states, which emphasises once again that in these matters the national picture is completely irrelevant in the US. The US elections are effectively 51 different elections, completely separated.

26 of the 50 states' bind their electors to the winner of the state ticket, but in some cases even they can vote against the ticket and just incur a fine. The other 24 states are completely unbound.

I posted the full list earlier on page 2.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The only thing that I will add is that Colorado also replaces faithless electors, as was noted in the link that I provided in this comment:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

It seems that it is a little different in Colorado--they don't "throw out" the vote of the faithless elector, per se, but they do replace the elector with an alternate who will vote following the law (via The Denver Post:

Some states impose fines. Others, like Colorado, don’t allow for so-called “faithless electors.” If an elector does not cast a vote for the right candidate, they are removed and replaced with a new elector, according to the Colorado secretary of state’s office.

My understanding is that, as long as after they receive all of the state votes and that one of the candidates has 270 votes or more, the election is validated. I only think that Congress gets involved if there are three or more candidates and that the votes for one of them does not reach 270--but at that point, I think that the vote then goes to the House, and they vote for the president.

It's all a cluster, really, when things don't go as planned...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Xcathdra

So, in effect, there are some states where the electors decision is utterly moot, because all their electors may do is tick the box they are told to.

Basically--but that's the beauty of state sovereignty, I suppose. Each state has its own rules as to how electors must cast their vote in response to the state's popular vote. Actually, from what I understand (and am too lazy to look up), some states rely on the party (Democrat, Republican, etc.) to devise the rules for their electors. It's all up to each state, and I'm okay with that.

Now, I have no problem with that, because I believe in democracy, and it sounds to me like one small group of people, voting on behalf of a large number of people in a general election is simply undemocratic.

America has never been nor ever will be a Democracy. Yes, the popular vote is a democratic process, and that works for all elected offices except for the presidency, but we are not a democracy. With the logic that you're using in calling the electoral college undemocratic, you might as well call the American government undemocratic, because we elect representatives (one small group of people) to act on behalf of the population's interests (a large number of people).

And that'd be okay, because we are not a democracy, and never were intended or designed to be one.

I'm a fence-sitter when it comes to the electoral college, but I'm coming around to the opinion that it is a necessary evil because of the way that the population is divided up in this country--not by states, but because of the massive concentration of populations in large urban areas.

a reply to: TrueBrit


The ruling by the federal judge in Colorado only applies to Colorado. So it would be more accurate to say the electors in that state are required to vote for the person who won the state (Hillary Clinton in this case). It creates a situation in other states with similar laws where the question on the legality of those laws is now more defined. Should a similar incident occur in another state they can refer to the Colorado ruling as to why the laws are valid.

The intent was to have a buffer with the electoral college. It was designed to "correct a mistake" should the citizens elect a person who is not qualified to hold the position. The qualifications by the way are 35 years of age and a natural born citizen and not "I dont like him".

The electoral college is also designed to make the elections fair to the states themselves. Using only population, many states would be ignored and cut out of the process all together and by extension it hurts the citizens of said states.

Currently the population is way more educated and in tune with candidates intentions and now that we exist in a 24 hour news world the chances of the population "making a mistake" is slim to non existent. With that said the electoral college must stay in place as it acts as a checks and balance against high population states from running over smaller ones - Like California and its 39 million people running over 10-20 smaller states whose total population equals that of California.

To win an election in a popular vote candidate would only need to carry California, New York , Florida, Texas. So 4 states get to set the entire agenda for a nation of over 300 million people, where more than 200 million who dont live in those 4 states face issues that dont exist in those states.

If you are going to be an elector for your party then why would you note vote for the member of your party who won the election?

Also as ive stated before the electoral college was not designed nor intended to deny an election win based solely on not liking the person. Thats why people are allowed to vote for other candidates.

Make sense or am I rambling on to much?

Just to touch on what others are correctly saying.

The US is comprised of 50 sovereign states. All US citizens, in essence, hold dual citizenship - that of the state they reside in and when traveling outside the US they are considered citizens of the United States.

In the Federal system the House of Representatives represent the people of all states. The Senate represents all of the States. Thats why the House representation is based on a states population and Senate representation is limited to 2 Senators per state.

It protects both the individuals and the states.




a reply to: SlapMonkey
You are essentially correct. If no one candidate receives 270 electoral votes it decision goes to Congress and not the electoral college. The House of Representatives chooses the President from the top 3 individuals who received the most electoral votes. They can not consider a person who is not in the top 3.

The Senate would choose the Vice President.