(UnitedVoice.com) – The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that states may enact laws outlawing so-called “faithless electors.” They’re members of the electoral college who pledged to vote for the popular winner in their states but instead cast their ballot for someone else.
SCOTUS today: Faithless Electors are no more, as long as a state requires electors to follow the popular vote for President (and all states should). The Electoral College needs serious reform or abolition, but allowing anonymous electors to ignore the people’s will is wrong.
— Larry Sabato (@LarrySabato) July 6, 2020
The main decision was in the case of Chiafalo v. Washington, where three people were fined $1000 each for failing to vote for Hillary Clinton, who’d won the majority of the people’s vote. They argued that the state law violated their First Amendment right to their freedom of speech. There was a parallel case in Colorado that technically had to be decided separately because Justice Sonia Sotomayor needed to recuse herself because of a relationship with one of the individuals involved.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the 9-0 decision which said that Article II, §1 of the United States Constitution, and the 12th Amendment gave the states broad discretion over how their electors must vote. Justice Clarence Thomas penned a concurring opinion in the decision, but his opinion relied on the rarely-used basis of the 10th Amendment, which says any authority not specifically granted to the federal government passes first to the state and then to the people.
Although at first blush this seems to be a case of little import, it actually could have major repercussions for the country. It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision a scenario where the Progressive Liberals and the never-Trumper’s would conspire to switch enough electors to deny President Trump the required 270 electoral votes to win the 2020 election outright.
We’ll be watching.
Copyright 2020, UnitedVoice.com