SCOTUS rules that 'faithless
electors' must vote for
popular-vote winner
Just the News,
by
Sophie Mann
Original Article
Posted By: Ida Lou Pino,
7/6/2020 10:40:58 AM
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as members of the Electoral College must vote the way the laws of their state direct. The high court ruled unanimously against advocates who were attempting to change the Electoral College and shift the country toward a nationwide popular voting system for the presidency. SCOTUS ruled that presidential electors must vote as their state requires them to, which in most states means voting for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Pegmo 7/6/2020 10:57:10 AM (No. 468822)
The left is relentless in their attempt to secure power. Yeah SC.
19 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 7/6/2020 11:00:16 AM (No. 468823)
It must have pained Roberts that his leaders on the SCOTUS, the other radicals, couldn't find a made up right in the Constitution. Roberts had to vote with the real judges and probably fears no more really cool DC cocktail party invites now.
16 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
JL80863 7/6/2020 11:08:11 AM (No. 468833)
Following the Constitution? Is that legal? s/o
22 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Pearson365 7/6/2020 11:12:15 AM (No. 468835)
“The high court ruled unanimously against advocates who were attempting to change the Electoral College and shift the country toward a nationwide popular voting system for the presidency. “
A truly significant win for the Constitution, for common sense and for President Trump. Unanimous decision also undercits Hillary’s delusional claim that she won in 2016 because of her popular vote margin, specifically in Calif where voter ID is meaningless. But Hillary won’t stop lying about her “win” just as Stacy Abrams won’t stop claiming that she is the governor of Georgia. They are both Democrats, where lying is the norm.
38 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
bpl40 7/6/2020 11:22:49 AM (No. 468855)
That takes PDT to 309 votes in the ‘16 election.
19 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 7/6/2020 11:39:33 AM (No. 468877)
Electors must follow the law? Shocking......well, shocking that the Supremes didn't choose to go off on some bizarre tangent, and that they stayed with the law.
This is good news.
19 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Mushroom 7/6/2020 11:40:56 AM (No. 468879)
OP, I love you but, we gotta fix that sarcasm indicator on your posts. So many of us bought those cheap Chinese sarcasm detectors and they are just not working right. :)
18 people like this.
I think a lot of you have been fooled. This decision is a precedent to make the "National Popular Vote Compact" work. When enough states pass a law ordering their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, the Supreme Court will point to this precedent to uphold forcing the state's electors to vote that way, even though the overwhelming majority of voters in the state voted for a different candidate.
12 people like this.
Maine and Nebraska both award electoral votes based on who wins a Congressional District. The two electoral votes that are apportioned because of Senate representation go to the candidate who wins the most votes in the state.
The Compact affiliation will be state law which can be changed by state legislatures or by referendum.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Blue-Z-Anna 7/6/2020 12:22:45 PM (No. 468942)
The headline suggests the national popular vote and may well presage it.
Leftists always slice the issue thin to avoid revealing their whole, true intent.
Conservatives do not benefit from deception though they are constantly accused of it.
Who needs to be conned into keeping their liberties ?
Still....a refreshing moment of clarity.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
BeatleJeff 7/6/2020 1:05:59 PM (No. 468995)
The headline is fake news. SCOTUS did not rule that Electors must vote for the popular vote winner. They ruled that Electors must follow their state's election laws and that states may punish Electors who go rogue.
9 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Axeman 7/6/2020 1:15:27 PM (No. 469003)
#8, The way I read it, the state's electors may only vote based on the same state's popular ballots. Not another or every state's. Such a state law that allows otherwise would be unconstitutional.
5 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Ben Around 7/6/2020 1:55:58 PM (No. 469068)
A novel idea, follow the law. Lately the court has made up it's own laws. What's going on here?
5 people like this.
#12 - #8 has the correct read in my view. The Court ruled the appointed electors must follow STATE law or risk fine or replacement. If state law prescribes its electoral votes go to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote, seems the electors have little choice but to vote in that manner, or risk fine or replacement. Folks need to read the decision, not simply some news story about it.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
franq 7/6/2020 5:01:37 PM (No. 469245)
If #14 is correct, our side has gained nothing.
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Folsomguy 7/6/2020 5:51:55 PM (No. 469313)
If #14 is correct, our side has lost everything.
1 person likes this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
jeffinitely 7/6/2020 6:24:04 PM (No. 469349)
As I tell my liberal friends, there is no such thing as a national popular vote. I think state election boards should put a disclaimer on their vote tally, such as "these numbers may not be used for any other purpose except the assigning of electoral college votes for the State of ________."
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
ronniethek 7/6/2020 8:59:27 PM (No. 469512)
The upshot here however is that SCOTUS wouLd probably uphold the multi-state compact as constitutional if so enacted by the various states. SAY GOODBYE TO AMERICA. As long as that was what the state law called for-the SCOTUS would be OK . BIG PROBLEM..
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ida Lou Pino"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Another outrageous decision. The Constitution clearly states that electors must cast their votes for the most radical leftist candidate.