A congressional clerk counted the official electoral ballot tally for the U.S. presidency in the Capitol during a joint session of Congress in 2017.
Photo: jim lo scalzo/EPA/ShutterstockWASHINGTON—A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that presidential electors can be required to cast ballots for the candidate who wins their state’s popular vote, reducing any Electoral College uncertainty as the U.S. heads toward a contentious election in November.
The court, in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, said that states stand on firm constitutional and historical ground in requiring that presidential electors must stick with the state’s voter-chosen candidate.
In the 2016 presidential contest, several Democratic electors attempted a last-minute maneuver to try to deny Donald Trump the victory. Ten out of the 538 electors attempted to cast ballots for a presidential candidate other than the one selected by their state’s voters, hoping enough Republican electors would follow suit that the outcome would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where a compromise candidate might prevail.
More on the High Court
In one of the cases, three of 12 electors from Washington state challenged the $1,000 fines they received for voting for retired Gen. Colin Powell instead of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee who won the state’s popular vote.
The second case came from Colorado, where the state removed one elector when he voted for former Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich instead of Mrs. Clinton.
The electors argued the Constitution empowered them to exercise discretion in casting votes, and lower courts split on the argument.
Justice Kagan said that constitutional provisions giving states power to select electors also allowed them to limit their role to casting proxy votes on behalf of the majority of the people.
“That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule,” Justice Kagan wrote.
By longstanding custom, electors have nearly always voted in accord with their states. In 32 states and the District of Columbia, they are legally required to do so; Monday’s decision upheld laws in nearly half those states, which apply sanctions to electors who stray.
The case presented the justices with a rare chance to divine rules for the Electoral College, which, as Justice Kagan described, was the “eleventh-hour compromise” adopted by the framers for choosing a president. “It was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience,” James Madison wrote to a friend, the court observed.
The system had a bumpy start, Justice Kagan wrote, with plot points juicy enough “as fodder for a new season of Veep”; the Electoral College installed rivals John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as president and vice president after George Washington left office under a since-discarded system that gave the No. 2 job to the runner-up.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
How does this ruling shape the future of the Electoral College? Join the conversation below.
The 12th Amendment later allowed electors to vote a straight party line, solving that problem.
Each state’s vote in the Electoral College is equal to the size of its congressional delegation of two senators and at least one representative. The system was adopted in light of some framers’ concerns about the wisdom and logistics of a direct election.
The political parties generally control the selection of potential electors in each state. The overwhelming majority of electors vote for the candidate chosen by their state’s voters, but rogue votes have been cast throughout U.S. history.
None of those votes has come close to tipping an election, but such a scenario has loomed as a possibility in the tightest of contests. Monday’s ruling makes a chaotic vote unlikely.
Justice Kagan noted that framers like Alexander Hamilton and John Jay praised the Constitution for entrusting the presidency to enlightened and respectable citizen electors who would make discerning choices about who should hold the nation’s highest office.
“But even assuming other framers shared that outlook, it would not be enough,” Justice Kagan wrote. “Whether by choice or accident,” she said, the framers didn’t enshrine that discretion in the Constitution.
The decision didn’t say that states must prohibit faithless electors, only that they were free to do so. That means states still have latitude to set rules as they wish—within limits. The court, for example, suggested the states couldn’t bind electors to vote for a candidate who died after Election Day.
Some electors from Washington state challenged the fines they received for not voting for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee who won the state’s popular vote in 2016.
Photo: etienne laurent/EPA/ShutterstockSome states have pushed for an interstate compact that would elect a president based on the national popular vote. So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have enacted measures that would award their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner once states holding an Electoral College majority adopt similar measures. Monday’s decision didn’t provide a hurdle to any such agreement, though other legal questions could arise.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the ruling averted a potential “democracy Doomsday.” Not only did it ensure the voters’ will would be translated through the Electoral College, it also addressed “our emerging concerns about the corruptibility of electors,” she said.
“Russia and other countries continue to try to undermine our democracy, either by direct attacks on our election systems, ransomware attacks or disinformation campaigns,” Ms. Griswold said. America’s enemies could attempt to undo the November result by targeting the Electoral College. “It’s a lot harder to have to trick lots of people, millions of people, hundreds of people, than one or two electors.”
Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who represented the faithless electors, accepted the decision.
“When we launched these cases, we did it because regardless of the outcome, it was critical to resolve this question before it created a constitutional crisis,” Mr. Lessig said. “Obviously, we don’t believe the court has interpreted the Constitution correctly. But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective—this uncertainty has been removed.”
Monday’s decision comes amid a wave of litigation unfolding around the country ahead of Election Day, much of it focused on rules for voting during the coronavirus pandemic.
The high court’s unanimity on the Electoral College stands in contrast to divisions that have emerged in some other recent cases where the court’s conservative majority has made clear it doesn’t favor rules changes on the eve of an election.
Last week the court, on a 5-4 vote, blocked accommodations that lower judges had ordered for Alabama’s upcoming primary runoff election that would have eased photo-identification and witness requirements for absentee voters.
Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
"can" - Google News
July 07, 2020 at 02:46AM
https://ift.tt/3e6FUOF
Supreme Court Rules States Can Prohibit Presidential Electors From Breaking Rank - The Wall Street Journal
"can" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2NE2i6G
https://ift.tt/3d3vX4n
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Supreme Court Rules States Can Prohibit Presidential Electors From Breaking Rank - The Wall Street Journal"
Post a Comment