|
Post by Devoid on Jan 18, 2020 1:05:53 GMT
The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the second of two cases regarding faithless electors.
Question Presented: A Washington State law threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs. RCW 29A.56.340 (2016). Petitioners are three 2016 presidential electors who were fined under this provision solely because they failed to vote as the law directs, namely for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won a majority of the popular vote in the State.
The question presented is whether enforcement of this law is unconstitutional because: - a State has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot; and
- a State penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.
Potential ruling: - Electors are allowed to vote independent of their original pledge without repercussion.
This is concerning as 538 individuals are then free to choose whomever they want (barring U.S. Presidential and Vice-Presidential eligibility requirements). In an extreme case, could the voters be 'compensated/bought off' for their choices? What about the will of the people?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Jan 20, 2020 16:18:19 GMT
The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the second of two cases regarding faithless electors.
Question Presented: A Washington State law threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs. RCW 29A.56.340 (2016). Petitioners are three 2016 presidential electors who were fined under this provision solely because they failed to vote as the law directs, namely for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won a majority of the popular vote in the State.
The question presented is whether enforcement of this law is unconstitutional because: - a State has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot; and
- a State penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.
Potential ruling: - Electors are allowed to vote independent of their original pledge without repercussion.
This is concerning as 538 individuals are then free to choose whomever they want (barring U.S. Presidential and Vice-Presidential eligibility requirements). In an extreme case, could the voters be 'compensated/bought off' for their choices? What about the will of the people?
Thoughts?
Change the constitution. It has been done 27 times before.
|
|