I’m not sure that I see the Constitutional difficulty. The Constitution never indicates how the electors should be chosen, other than that the states have the right to choose them. Article II Section 1 says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
The 14th Amendment mentions electors, but only in the context of when they are chosen by popular vote within a state. The electors can be nominated by the governor, names picked out of a hat, whatever — as long as the correct number of electors are chosen.
Not trying to be argumentative, I just really don’t see where the Constitutional issue is. The electors will, by necessity, be faithless, but that’s not actually unconstitutional, as far as I can tell.
I just really don’t see where the Constitutional issue is.
*****
READ Bush v. Gore - dammit !!!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Section II B - First AND Second paragraphs ...
Doesn’t any “winner takes all” directive to the electors of a state make it unconstitutional ? Appointing electors, who may or may not vote as directed, seems implied in the passages you quote. The Constitution doesn’t say each state shall have “votes”, but “electors”, which are PERSONS. Electors have at least the possibility of voting their conscience without regard to the popular vote in their state. This CA policy, just as the other states that give all their electoral college votes in a single block, should be unconstitutional because it denies those individual electors the right to vote their conscience.