Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/faithless-electors-supreme-court/index.html

And by unanimous decision. Time to move on. The electoral college is here to stay.

 

9-0.
And the left will -still- complain.

 

They were not voting on the viability of the electoral college, they were voting on the political hack electors being forced to vote in the candidate that the majority in their state elected.

 

... because the validity cannot be questioned.

 

I assume that states who carved out "districts" and don't represent an entire state like Maine, or Nebraska will now have to follow the law...

 

Yes, we know. They made the right decision.

 

Or they'll protest and destroy some more statues, call Trump a racist etc...

 

no they are allowed to do that. The State legislatures decide how the electors are counted. what happened here is dems were attempting to get electors to violate state laws that required electors to vote a certain way

 

It always has been unless there is a Constitutional Amendment doing away with it. The original intent of the framers was to give the electors free will in casting their vote. This can be seen in the papers they left behind. Although the framers never made that part of the Constitution, giving state legislatures the authority, power to appoint electors in any manner they deem. So it seems the SCOTUS has ruled the power to appoint and tell electors how they will vote is one and the same. No faithless elector has come close to ever changing an outcome of an election, apparently none will from this point in time onward.

I don't see it as any big deal. Especially when the framers did their thing, very few states held a popular vote. The state legislatures award the electoral votes as then so deemed or chose. It wasn't until after the civil war that all states went to the popular vote. What is good about the ruling is they left Maine and Nebraska alone. Their state legislature choose to award their electoral votes via congressional districts. So states still can change from a winner take all to at least congressional district method if they so choose to do so. That's still leaving the appointment and the awarding of the electoral votes up to the state legislature.

Apparently, if any state wishes not to pass a law punishing, using your word, or negating an elector's vote in contrary to the popular vote, that also is still Constitutional. That is at the discretion of the the state legislatures. As I understand it anyway. So we may still have faithless electors depending on state law.

 

I understand the need for electoral college but still sucks for someone like me as my (presidential) vote never matters in the state I live in.

 

In other words, if Trump wins States(and duh, wins the election), the states can punish them for not obeying the laws of the election.

 

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;"

Electors vote. That's their job. They can't be punished for doing so.

 

The court said otherwise, 9-0.

 

I would say this is a stepping stone in eliminating the electoral college. Now there is officially no reason for the electoral college to exist.

 

So the US government said that the electors appointed by the several sovereign states aren't supposed to do their jobs per the constitution?

 

Except that it was agreed to in the establishment of the constitution between the states. But, luckily for you, the treaty also contains an amendment process.

 

The court said the states, having plenary power in the manner of choosing their electors, can punish electors who do not vote according to the slate they were appointed for.

 

In theory, I suppose the physical people who make up the college could be done away with. It wouldn't change how voting happens - states would still decide how to use their allotted electoral votes, which is based on Congressional representation.

 

Their job is to vote according to how the state decided to vote. SCOTUS did nothing to change that.

 

Choosing the electors. But how do any of the states have any power over the vote that the elector casts?

 

Is it? According to how the state decided to vote? Really? Where does the constitution say that?

 

They are called laws. Happy to help.

 

The US constitution is completely silent on how states choose their electors. It's up to the individual states to decide.

 

Do you know what the word "vote" means?

 

Yep. They can choose electors any way they choose. But they can't coerce them to vote for anyone.