Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear presidential Electoral College dispute
Reuters ^ | 5/13/2020 | Andrew Chung, Lawrence Hurley

Posted on 05/13/2020 4:33:08 AM PDT by EBH

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.

If enough electors do so, it could upend an election.

The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump.

The litigation involves the presidential election system set out in the U.S. Constitution in which the winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.

While that number of so-called faithless electors did not change the election’s outcome, it would have in five of the 58 previous U.S. presidential elections.

State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs said the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: colorado; election; electoralcollege; electors; faithlesscandidates; faithlesselectors; judiciary; nationalpopularvote; npv; politicaljudiciary; scotus; superdelegates; supremecourt; supremes; votefraud; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last
To: StoneRainbow68

The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.


21 posted on 05/13/2020 5:15:26 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wny

“The Constitution (not that it matters anymore) says the states decide how to award their EVs. A state could award its electors based on which league wins the World Series.“

Says you. In such an instance I’d file suit stating that it violates Article 4, section 1 guaranteeing a republican form of government. The winner of the World Series does not represent the people of any given state, let alone the voters of the state in which such an insane policy might be attempted.


22 posted on 05/13/2020 5:16:51 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: StoneRainbow68

We are “here” because very serious changes are occurring. Our Constitution tried to “save the people from themselves” as much as possible.

As America changes fundamentally within, these changes grow more serious. When our nation’s people loved liberty, none of this would be an issue. The idea that people could “vote out” liberty used to be preposterous. But in our age of “increasing equality” everyone gets a vote.

As the tide of public opinion changes and more and more want to vote us into a communist state, the harder it will be for the safeguards to protect our freedoms.


23 posted on 05/13/2020 5:19:52 AM PDT by Vaden (First they came for the Confederates... Next they came for Washington... Then they came...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Should be a slam dunk.....NO they are not but the world in insane


24 posted on 05/13/2020 5:20:32 AM PDT by blueyon (`nt to be a nothing burger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

EXCELLENT rebuttal. That’s precisely why this matters.

We don’t need, or want, a dictatorship of 538 people.


25 posted on 05/13/2020 5:22:54 AM PDT by Vaden (First they came for the Confederates... Next they came for Washington... Then they came...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

-—”The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.”-—

Yes, but that wouldn’t have happened. Faithless electors only really change their vote when it WON’T effect the outcome. If the election is extremely close in the EC (like in 2000), everyone votes the way they’re “supposed to”, because nobody wants to be the guy that crashes the system.

Trump and Hillary had an unusual amount of hate from their enemies, and even then, the “faithless” number was small as Trump’s EC margin was healthy. Some EC voters felt free to be faithless because they knew it wouldn’t matter.

These laws are attempting to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, and never has any practical consequences.


26 posted on 05/13/2020 5:25:50 AM PDT by StoneRainbow68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Case has nothing to do with that. I read the excerpt


27 posted on 05/13/2020 5:26:00 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (Committee to Re-Elect the President ( CREEP ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EBH

So it’s exactly what I said about the NPVI. As soon as a republican won the popular vote and the states (all democrat as I recall) who passed that law had to award their votes to the GOP candidate they would be clamoring to back out of the Pact. So now these same states that hate the EC want the USSC to rule The electors have to vote for the person who won your states popular vote.


28 posted on 05/13/2020 5:26:33 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

This is the dimocrats biggest wet dream, the total destruction of the electoral college. Tear that down and they will never ever lose another presidential election as they have the illegal vote and the sit on their butts at home mob. That is their primary target. That, and adding more to the Supreme Court so that they never lose another argument there. I expect them to put at least four hard core leftists on the panel and they will win all arguments. Those are their primary goals!!!


29 posted on 05/13/2020 5:29:33 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The Bible predicted these type of days. Pray to the LORD GOD for mercy on this Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneRainbow68

7 faithless electors in ‘16


30 posted on 05/13/2020 5:31:40 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (Committee to Re-Elect the President ( CREEP ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

—7 faithless electors in ‘16-—

Sigh. Yes, I know. The point is there were an unusually high amount only because Trump’s lead in the EC was enough so that a handful felt free to do so. In a really close EC margin they wouldn’t. One of the most divisive elections ever and this wasn’t even close to being a problem.

Electors are LOYALISTS and PARTISANS to whatever candidate chose them. These two state laws are pointless circle-jerks.


31 posted on 05/13/2020 5:35:12 AM PDT by StoneRainbow68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

States are not allowed to enter into a Compact unless Congress allows it, IIRC.


32 posted on 05/13/2020 5:36:56 AM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EBH

>> are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.

free to disregard laws

NOPE

that is why they are laws

this is about disenfranchising “flyover country” and rural areas.


33 posted on 05/13/2020 5:38:15 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Joe Biden- "First thing I'd do is repeal those Trump tax cuts." (May 4th, 2019))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

The issue of our era is our Free Constitutional Republic.

The Left is in this to destroy it and they’re in it to win.

The Right seems clueless about even what the issue is.

Because of this one-sided battle, the Right has allowed the Left to bring America to the brink.

Will Patriots and the Right wake up in time? God in Heaven only knows.


34 posted on 05/13/2020 5:38:21 AM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wny

who has the standing to present this case???


35 posted on 05/13/2020 5:39:24 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Joe Biden- "First thing I'd do is repeal those Trump tax cuts." (May 4th, 2019))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: StoneRainbow68

They’re making it so a very few can change the outcome.

Extorting/blackmailing just 25 Trump electors would do it.


36 posted on 05/13/2020 5:40:50 AM PDT by Principled (No one will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
I’d file suit stating that it violates Article 4, section 1 guaranteeing a republican form of government.

They invented something they call standing to do away with upstarts like you.

ML/NJ

37 posted on 05/13/2020 5:41:36 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

>>Would you apply that same logic to the “National Popular Vote Initiative?”

that invalidates the local vote entirely. you can award electors that way without even holding an election in your state.

It also opens the door to voters in other states demanding a Federal recount of votes in California and NY since it determines the electors in another state.


38 posted on 05/13/2020 5:45:03 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Joe Biden- "First thing I'd do is repeal those Trump tax cuts." (May 4th, 2019))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"If they decide that this stuff is OK, then doesn’t that open the door to jury nullification?"

Jurymen are always free to vote anyway they please... We just need the necessary stones to do so.. The jury (the people) have a right to nullify bad laws... I'm I wrong.??

39 posted on 05/13/2020 5:45:35 AM PDT by unread (A REPUBLIC..! if you can keep it....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Principled

-—They’re making it so a very few can change the outcome.
Extorting/blackmailing just 25 Trump electors would do it.-—

That’s not realistic, and that could theoretically happen without these laws, and the laws don’t make it easier to do what you’re afraid of.

Californis has 54 Electoral Votes. Hillary chooses 54 people loyal to her; Trump chooses 54 loyal to him. If she wins the state, her Electors vote, and his stay home, and vice versa if he wins the state.

I’m desperately trying to figure out the point of laws which require people to do something they already desperately want to do anyway - vote for THEIR candidate.


40 posted on 05/13/2020 5:46:13 AM PDT by StoneRainbow68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson