Washington state electors go rogue.

[Black Diamond]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/four-washington-electors-break-ranks-and-dont-vote-for-clinton/?utm_source=The+Seattle+Times&utm_campaign=7184b7b9c4-Alert_Four_Washington_electors_break_ranks_and_don&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5beb38b61e-7184b7b9c4-120356829

[Black Diamond]

:lol:

[jimnyc]

I had read about a few somewhere else not voting Trump, and you reeled me in with this one! LOL After this crazy election, not surprised that a bunch will go elsewhere. But even the activists going after Trump have already conceded. So unless something changed in the past 48 hours or so, the outcome won't be changing.

[Black Diamond]

I had read about a few somewhere else not voting Trump, and you reeled me in with this one! LOL After this crazy election, not surprised that a bunch will go elsewhere. But even the activists going after Trump have already conceded. So unless something changed in the past 48 hours or so, the outcome won't be changing.
Faith spotted eagle. :lol:

[fj1200]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/four-washington-electors-break-ranks-and-dont-vote-for-clinton/?utm_source=The+Seattle+Times&utm_campaign=7184b7b9c4-Alert_Four_Washington_electors_break_ranks_and_don&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5beb38b61e-7184b7b9c4-120356829

Unpossible. There's a law. :scared:

[CSM]

Unpossible. There's a law. :scared:

Laws only restrain or enable the law abiding....

[jimnyc]

Unpossible. There's a law. :scared:

Yep, in certain states there are, as I stated before the vote - hence a handful of voters being replaced to vote properly. The went against what is in the constitution and replaced them. I guess they had trouble finding that in the COTUS too. So EXACTLY what I stated played out. Some states allow for vote changing, and others have laws on the books preventing just that.

Maybe you should have called a few of those states and taught them constitutional law before they illegally replaced voters?

[fj1200]

Laws only restrain or enable the law abiding....

Some laws are, IMO, unconstitutional.


Yep, in certain states there are, as I stated before the vote - hence a handful of voters being replaced to vote properly. The went against what is in the constitution and replaced them. I guess they had trouble finding that in the COTUS too. So EXACTLY what I stated played out. Some states allow for vote changing, and others have laws on the books preventing just that.

Maybe you should have called a few of those states and taught them constitutional law before they illegally replaced voters?

I thought you stated it was against the law so in those states they would be replaced. My apologies if I got that wrong somewhere along the line. :) Nevertheless those laws will be struck down, IMO, when someone gets around to suing.

[jimnyc]

Some laws are, IMO, unconstitutional.

Yup, it's only an opinion at this time.


I thought you stated it was against the law so in those states they would be replaced. My apologies if I got that wrong somewhere along the line. :) Nevertheless those laws will be struck down, IMO, when someone gets around to suing.

I did, and they were.

[fj1200]

Yup, it's only an opinion at this time.



I did, and they were.

A supported opinion. And not all were replaced. The CO folks should sue, I think they've got the best case.

[jimnyc]

A supported opinion. And not all were replaced. The CO folks should sue, I think they've got the best case.

I only ever stated that they could be replaced in the states that have such laws on the books.

A supported opinion doesn't make it any more than just that, an opinion. And as to current law, that supported opinion means absolutely zilch. Perhaps if someone sues they can attach those opinions to their lawsuit. As of right now, they're no more than just that, an opinion.

[fj1200]

I only ever stated that they could be replaced in the states that have such laws on the books.

A supported opinion doesn't make it any more than just that, an opinion. And as to current law, that supported opinion means absolutely zilch. Perhaps if someone sues they can attach those opinions to their lawsuit. As of right now, they're no more than just that, an opinion.

So you've said. An opinion on a debate site. I'll try to change my ways.

[jimnyc]

So you've said. An opinion on a debate site. I'll try to change my ways.

I've pointed out it's only nothing more than an opinion - as often as you've tried to state things as unconstitutional. It wasn't even implied that you couldn't have an opinion. But I think the current standing law carries more weight, and it was proven by the removal of an elector.

I have to wonder at this point why it hasn't been brought to the SC yet?

Here's something I am just reading.... I have to wonder :) So it appears it HAS been in front of the SC, to an extent.

----


In the seminal decision of Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court made clear electors act at the privilege of the state that empowers them, and do NOT enjoy any special right to vote as they please.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee. In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the Alabama state supreme court, and rejected the idea that an elector had any Constitutionally protected right to vote in the electoral college as he or she chose.

Electors only “act by authority of the state.” Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. at 224 (1952). The Constitution itself gives such power to the states without restriction or restraint. “Neither the language of Art. II, § 1, nor that of the Twelfth Amendment forbids a party to require from candidates in its primary a pledge of political conformity with the aims of the party.” The “suggestion” of some “assumed” elector choice to ignore the state’s limitations on his office was “impossible to accept” as some intention of the founders. As the court noted: “history teaches” just the opposite, as electors “were expected to support the party nominees.”. Indeed, the Supreme Court labeled such faithless electors a “fraudulent invasion” for a reason.

----

The actual decision:

Where a state authorizes a political party to choose its nominees for Presidential Electors in a state-controlled party primary election and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, it is not violative of the Federal Constitution for the party to require the candidates for the office of Presidential Elector to take a pledge to support the nominees of the party's National Convention for President and Vice-President or for the party's officers to refuse to certify as a candidate for Presidential Elector a person otherwise qualified who refuses to take such a pledge. Pp. 215-231.

The entire ruling: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/343/214.html

[jimnyc]

So it may not be written into specific law in those states that they can be replaced, but the SC says otherwise:

including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee

[jimnyc]

The Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring of a candidate for Presidential Elector in its primary a pledge to support the nominees of its National Convention. Pp. 228-231.

[fj1200]

Here's something I am just reading.... I have to wonder :) So it appears it HAS been in front of the SC, to an extent.

I posted that case a day or two ago. Pledges are Constitutional but enforceable prior to the election if the Wikipedia link is correct; the problem with the CO case might be that they altered the pledge post election. Additionally they did comment on the freedoms of the electors:


However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional. A candidacy in the primary is a voluntary act of the applicant. He is not barred, discriminatorily, from participating but must comply with the rules of the party. Surely one may voluntarily assume obligations to vote for a certain candidate. The state offers him opportunity to become a candidate for elector on his own terms, although he must file his declaration before the primary. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, 145. Even though the victory of an independent candidate for elector in Alabama cannot be anticipated, the state does offer the opportunity for the development of other strong political organizations where the need is felt for them by a sizable block of voters. Such parties may leave their electors to their own choice. [343 U.S. 214, 231]
We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention. Where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for elector in a party primary and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, we see no federal constitutional objection to the requirement of this pledge.