SCOTUS Ruling: Faithless Electors

[Dumbledork]

Can someone like I’m 5 this for me? This is good, right?

I don’t know why, but I swear I have a mental block when it comes to the EC. I listen and learn and then promptly forget everything about it, even though I know it’s a relatively simple concept.

thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/505984-supreme-court-rules-states-can-remove-faithless-electors

“But in the majority opinion on Monday, Kagan wrote that the Constitution's framers could have explicitly required electors to have autonomy but declined to do so.

"All that they put down about the electors was what we have said: that the States would appoint them, and that they would meet and cast ballots to send to the Capitol," Kagan wrote. "Those sparse instructions took no position on how independent from—or how faithful to—party and popular preferences the electors’ votes should be. On that score, the Constitution left much to the future."”

[cville]

The ruling means it's OK for states to have laws that require electors to vote the way the popular vote went in that state and to punish or remove electors who don't do so.

This would only be a big deal in a very close election and if enough electors decided not to vote the way of the popular vote in their state such that someone who should have gotten 270 electoral votes (and thus won), didn't. I.e., potentially this clusterfuck of an election.

[seeyalater52]

Jul 6, 2020 10:59:18 GMT -5 cville said:

The ruling means it's OK for states to have laws that require electors to vote the way the popular vote went in that state and to punish or remove electors who don't do so.

This would only be a big deal in a very close election and if enough electors decided not to vote the way of the popular vote in their state such that someone who should have gotten 270 electoral votes (and thus won), didn't. I.e., potentially this clusterfuck of an election.

I agree, I think this is fairly limited. Not very many states have these rules in place already and very few states are positioned to pass new laws on this topic prior to the Nov election, so this is unlikely to have a large impact on 2020.

[Dumbledork]

Thank you! That was my initial understanding, so I’m glad I didn’t miss anything.

[cville]

Jul 6, 2020 11:01:30 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Jul 6, 2020 10:59:18 GMT -5 cville said:

The ruling means it's OK for states to have laws that require electors to vote the way the popular vote went in that state and to punish or remove electors who don't do so.

This would only be a big deal in a very close election and if enough electors decided not to vote the way of the popular vote in their state such that someone who should have gotten 270 electoral votes (and thus won), didn't. I.e., potentially this clusterfuck of an election.

I agree, I think this is fairly limited. Not very many states have these rules in place already and very few states are positioned to pass new laws on this topic prior to the Nov election, so this is unlikely to have a large impact on 2020.

I thought the number of states with these laws was in the 30s? In any event, electors better not fucking vote for Kanye this year.

[seeyalater52]

Jul 6, 2020 11:24:17 GMT -5 cville said:

Jul 6, 2020 11:01:30 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I agree, I think this is fairly limited. Not very many states have these rules in place already and very few states are positioned to pass new laws on this topic prior to the Nov election, so this is unlikely to have a large impact on 2020.

I thought the number of states with these laws was in the 30s? In any event, electors better not fucking vote for Kanye this year.

Hah, maybe I'm misremembering!