There’s nothing complex about it. The SC shouldn’t even be hearing this case. 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.
Originally the Constitution had the same concept with Senators, too.
Personally, I’m a fan of frog jumping contests.
Spot on
Would you apply that same logic to the "National Popular Vote Initiative?"
“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.
who has the standing to present this case???
Not really. Read the 14th amendment, section 2.
That isn’t the question. The question is AFTER a state names electors that already have been chosen-—by whatever means-—must vote as they were originally chosen to vote.
If the state went for Trump and electors were chosen to vote for Trump in the EC, but change their mind, can they change their vote in the EC.
The Constitution is quite vague about this. Indeed, a good case based on how much the Founders viewed independence at all levels was that they might have viewed an elector who (in his view) upheld a “higher loyalty” to the Constitution vs. the will of the state might be free to change his vote. I don’t think this is a slam dunk, either way.
“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.”
Not according to section 2 of the 14th amendment. The people vote and choose their electors, the electors then meet and vote for President. Forcing electors to vote a certain way would force a disconnect between the voters and the electors they choose, by forcing the electors to vote against the will of the people who voted for them.
On it's face, no. But the real issue is whether the states, who control the process, can penalize a "faithless" elector through monetary fines, execution if a Dem elector switches, or "replace" the "faithless elector" with a compliant elector before the state officially reports their vote. That would seem to be an issue for the SC.
That's not at issue in this case.
Pretty much correct. The arguments for this will be interesting.
But then why have an election if the Legislature is going to pick the winner? And if they get to pick the electors then that is exactly what will happen. No ones vote will matter. The states pick for president will always go to the party in control. There will be no other outcome. Judging by the way the democrats are constantly infiltrating everything then We get Obama’s forever under that scenario.
That's the question. Does each State have the authority to order its Electors to vote a certain way? The Washington Supreme Court said yes, but the Tenth Circuit said no. If the Supreme Court had refused to hear these cases, the States would be unsure of their authority in this matter.