- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So... what if it happens tomorrow?
Posted on 12/18/16 at 4:49 pm to Dr RC
Posted on 12/18/16 at 4:49 pm to Dr RC
quote:
The electors are allowed to vote for whoever they want.
I believe 29 states have laws saying otherwise and the rest have oaths to uphold the will of the people of that state.
This post was edited on 12/18/16 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 12/18/16 at 4:52 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
The fact that this is even a discussion is insane.
Posted on 12/18/16 at 4:58 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
I believe 29 states have laws saying otherwise and the rest have oaths to uphold the will of the people of that state.
True but those have been pretty much never enacted when faithless electors occur.
LINK
Moreover
quote:
The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:quote:
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 (emphasis added).
The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Douglas, wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)