Replies

We simply do not know what we are talking about until we see the opinion.

If the thrust of the opinion as to the effect that the Constitution awards the states unfettered prerogative to control their electors, this could be a very very dangerous opinion for us. A growing number of states will simply require electors to vote the national consensus, and the geography of the electoral college will give Democrats the advantage.

If the opinion is limited in that it acknowledges a constitutional power in the states to only control faithless electors, the opinion is benign.

“We simply do not know what we are talking about until we see the opinion.”

Here is the opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

If the thrust of the opinion as to the effect that the Constitution awards the states unfettered prerogative to control their electors, this could be a very very dangerous opinion for us.

I have been an early opponent of this decision.

It is my belief that states can control the METHOD of selecting electors, but once chosen those electors have free will to vote their conscience. As an analogy, prior to the 17th amendment, legislatures had control of the METHOD of choosing Senators, but they could not control how those Senators voted in Congress.

Furthermore, the 12th amendment says:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President... and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The 12th amendment makes it clear that it is too late for a state to take corrective actions against a faithless elector once those sealed ballots are opened in Congress and counted. The vote of the elector will have already happened. The state cannot change the vote; they can only change the elector to one who will vote differently, but that will be too late since the original elector has already voted and been counted in Congress by the time the faithlessness is discovered.

In effect, this ruling by the Supreme Court nullifies the 12th amendment procedure for counting electors' sealed ballots.

-PJ