SCOTUS To Hear “Faithless Electors” Case

Town Hall

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would decide whether electoral college electors must vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote. Half the states currently have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.

Electors who do not vote in accordance to the winner of their state’s popular vote are known as “faithless electors.” According to NBC News, the so-called problem of faithless electors has never really been an actual problem before. In fact, most states simply throw out the ballot of an elector who doesn’t follow the state’s popular vote.

But in 2016, the Democrats ran such a rotten candidate that several electors in states carried by Hillary Clinton cast their ballots for someone else. One elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for two different people — three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren. Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law. More

I hope SCOTUS ruling applies to those states that are participating in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Dr. Tar

7 Comments on SCOTUS To Hear “Faithless Electors” Case

  1. What, they plan on becoming “super voters” and ignore the will of the states voters?
    If they don’t vote like they’re supposed to then do away with them.
    I’m sick of these rogue jackasses.

  2. If they rule that electors are obligated to vote according to what they agreed to when they were elected, could that then be applied to the actions of politicians and judges who promise one thing and do another? Nah. What was I thinking?

  3. Don’t f—k it up, Roberts. I can’t believe I have to say that.

    And can we get Kavanaugh to preside over the impeachment scam? He’s got a lot more personal experience with this crap.


Comments are closed.