Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner (Colorado)

Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner

DENVER (AP) — A federal judge dealt a severe setback Monday to a longshot plan to deny Donald Trump the presidency through the Electoral College, refusing to suspend a Colorado law requiring the state's nine electors to vote for the presidential candidate who won the state in November.

U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel denied a request by two Colorado electors who contended that the law binding their vote to Colorado vote winner Hillary Clinton violated their First Amendment rights and the intents of the Constitution's framers. The electors had sought the right to vote for someone other than Clinton in order to unite behind a consensus Republican other than Trump when the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19.

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, who was nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1995.

click link for article...

Well this settles the elector issue out of Colorado. A Federal judge has ruled electors must vote for the person who won the state. The fact the law was upheld tells me other states with similar laws will also prevail in any court challenge. It also puts to rest the constitutionality of state laws requiring electors to vote for the person who won the state.

While the electoral college is established by the US Constitution its up to the states to run the elections.

So now we are back to 2 or 3 electors from other states who want to vote for someone else.

I am curious what excuse the Democrats will use now to try and end run around the Constitution.

The problem is that they only need 37 across all 30 states that Trump won.
The CIA may be meeting privately with each elector.

Wasn't there a thread here on ATS to the different states elector laws?

I'm wondering which states have laws that say elector votes get thrown out if they vote contrary to the election results.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The problem is that they only need 37 across all 30 states that Trump won.

Most states have laws that require electors to vote for the person who won the state. I would imagine that in addition to being fined, their vote might be invalidated if they violate state law. Thats 9 electoral votes (CO) required to go to Hillary, dropping the remaining electors down to 2 or 3.

Texas and Washington have state laws requiring electors to vote for the person who won the state. The remaining electors come from those 2 states.

The federal judge also saw this scam for what it was. To overturn a fair election to deny Trump the presidency.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is funny Xcathdra that no matter how much we tried to explain that electors can not be dissenters and neither are supposed to be activist due to individual states mandates dealing with electors people still doesn't get it.,

Been a dissenter elector means that they either will excuse themselves from voting, or that they will face the consequences of their actions.

Still is a trend that is forming in which this behavior is been encouraging, by no other than the loser side.

Is just none American, then those behind the activism are nothing more than deep knee in cohorts with Hillary's camp.

Incredible.

Each state have their own rules regarding their electors.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

I believe that is a few posted on one of the many threads on election day.

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

a reply to: marg6043

Whats interesting was the judge stating it would cause harm to the residents of the state if an elector votes for someone other than who won the state. I never bothered to look at it in-depth from that viewpoint before and it makes sense.

Essentially the electors would be usurping the will of the people and creating a situation that would prevent a peaceful transition of power. Those 2 points completely undermine the lefts position. This also could potentially put to rest the "russia hacked the election" bs being pushed.

The judge was appointed by Bill Clinton.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't even think Hillary would accept any change in the election at this point anyway.

God forbid Tim Kaine becomes POTUS. I may dislike Trump but man, that VP pick on Hillary's side was just poor.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

When a judge had to come out and tell the electors or let just reword, remind them of the states laws that tells you how bad is getting.

Now as for Trump I have no doubt that he will be sworn in, like you I also waiting to see where all those that he had chosen are going, they need to be approved first.

Now his administration is starting to look like old Bush Jr. one, I don't like it, beside Mad Dog, I am trying to digest the rest.

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.

a reply to: marg6043

Anti trump folk should be relatively happy. What's happeneing is exactly what I proposed would the day after the election.

Trump is going to choose a whole swath of people with 0 or close to 0 political experience, and everybody in his administration is going to spend the first 18 learning ' how to white house'.

His agenda is going to suffer greatly just from that alone. And that's only if there aren't any hiccups and scandals a long the way.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't even think Hillary would accept any change in the election at this point anyway.

God forbid Tim Kaine becomes POTUS. I may dislike Trump but man, that VP pick on Hillary's side was just poor.

~Tenth

Well there is the other conspiracy where electors would vote for a candidate, like Kasich. If they could drop Trump down below 270, the House would pick the new President. They would be required to consider the top 3 candidates who received the most electoral votes. Even if Kasich got 1 electoral vote he would be a potential choice.

That way Clinton and Trump get denied and a moderate republican would get the presidency, saving face for Republicans and Democrats.

This also seems to make a moot point out of dems pushing for the electoral college to get a briefing on the bs russia story.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The problem is that they only need 37 across all 30 states that Trump won.
The CIA may be meeting privately with each elector.

do you have any EVIDENCE the CIA may be meeting privately with each elector, or are just blowin' smoke?

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.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh they may have lobbying experience and experience dealing with politicians, but they mostly don't know how this stuff works.

They just make phone calls and donate money and expect their wishes to be done. They need to learn how to govern, all those processes and time frames and general know how, is going to be largely lost in a Trump Cabinet.

And some may consider that a good thing and it very well may be, but it's going to take more time to get your fruits from that labor if you know what I mean.

~Tenth

originally posted by: acackohfcc

originally posted by: UKTruth
The problem is that they only need 37 across all 30 states that Trump won.
The CIA may be meeting privately with each elector.

do you have any EVIDENCE the CIA may be meeting privately with each elector, or are just blowin' smoke?

There is no evidence - but that will not stop the CIA doing the bidding of Democrats.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

No I think his picks know how things work. Like I said he has career politicians among the private sector nominees.

Here's The FULL List Of Donald Trump's Cabinet Choices So Far

The electors were literally put in place as a buffer from the public vote. Why is anyone talking about this like any cospiracy or anti constitutional.

Maybe read the Republic again and you will see the whole reason we anyone re a republic is because we have NEVER trusted the the people alone to vote.

Aristotle says it openly, the people as a whole are too stupid to be trusted with democracy. Forefathers echoed with the system.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Secrety of State
Treasury
Labor
Commerce
Education

So far those ones aren't career politicians, and although some would think aren't really super important cabinet positions in relation to say, attorney general, I would say his domestic policy is going to be slow to get out with those selections.

You're right about the rest though.

~Tenth