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.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: smurfy
That was suppose to be can't be modified.
Sorry - typo on my part.
The information you provided is correct with the exception of the latest federal court ruling in Colorado who stated Colorado state law requires the electors to vote for the person who carried the state and the electors must comply with it. He also referenced the state law in his ruling so there is no inferences that need to be made about the intent of his ruling. While the ruling only applies to Colorado electors it can be cited now should states want to enforce their state laws on requiring an elector to vote for the person who carried the state.
If the state law was invalid or violated the Constitution the judge would have said as much in a reverse ruling on the side of the plaintiffs - but he didnt.
The judges ruling also settled the meaning of qualified when he rejected the argument made by the electors to suspend the law, stating they were trying to deny the vote to the winner solely because they didnt like the person.
Daniel found that suspending the Colorado requirement would have harmed the state's voters and jeopardized a peaceful presidential transition. "Part of me thinks this is really a political stunt to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president," said Daniel
Federal law does not have to be specific because their jurisdiction is limited since the Constitution also gives the states the authority to run their elections as they see fit within the guidelines of the electoral college. Since electors behavior is not defined it falls to the states. In addition party requirements on electors are also valid.
It was never the intent for the electoral college to be used to nullify an election result based on not liking the candidate in question. It was purely designed to prevent a person from becoming President who does not meet the qualifications defined in the Constitution.
An issue for sure back the but not so much today.
Even though Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won in their state, electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, who are part of the Hamilton Electors movement (along with one other elector from Washington state), filed the suit in the hope it would set a precedent, freeing electors in states that Trump won to vote against the president-elect.
But a federal judge in Denver ruled on Tuesday that Colorado’s nine electors must vote for Clinton, the winner of the state’s popular vote.
Baca and Nemanich have filed an emergency appeal to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Wednesday, the same federal judge in Denver ruled that if the Democratic electors refuse to vote for Clinton, Colorado’s secretary of state may replace them with electors who will follow the law, if he so chooses.