U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS FACING DISTURBING NEW THREAT: 'FAITHLESS ELECTORS'
WND Staff
Could 'lead to instability and erode confidence in our system of government'
November 24, 2019
Wha if all those calls by Democratic presidential hopefuls to eliminate the Electoral College were simply unnecessary?
What if political parties need only to lobby members of the Electoral College to vote for a certain candidate, instead of accepting the voters' choice?
A ruling by the 10th Circuit Court in favor of a "faithless elector" who did not abide by Colorado law and vote for the candidate chosen by the majority in his state has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
TRENDING:DOJ watchdog expected to clear Comey, McCabe, Strzok of anti-Trump bias: Report
A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Bopp Law Firm on behalf of the American Uniform Law Commission argues for overturning the ruling.
James Bopp Jr. said it's "vital that the court evaluate the constitutional questions at issue in the Colorado appeal, which cut to the core of our democracy."
"It is vitally important that the voters' belief that the will of the majority of voters in the state will be carried out when the electors cast their ballots for president. The political division that could be caused by having a faithless elector overrule the will of the people in her state would lead to instability and erode confidence in our system of government."
The brief argues Colorado, "like several other states, has adopted a faithful elector law, which provides a mechanism to ensure that presidential electors vote in accordance with the popular vote in the state."
It was in 2016 when a Colorado elector attempted to cast his ballot for John Kasich, instead of Hillary Clinton, who had won Colorado’s popular vote.
"This 'faithless' presidential elector was removed under Colorado’s faithless elector law and his replacement voted for Hillary Clinton. He later filed suit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of Colorado’s law," the legal team said.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Colorado's law is unconstitutional, that electors "must be given the freedom to vote their free will, even if their vote does not reflect the will of the people in that state."
The Bopp legal team explained the Uniform Law Commission, or ULC, is to provide non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. It provides drafts of laws, which individual states can then enact, either in full or as modified.
The ULC proposed the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act, or UFPEA, in 2010.
It would establish a framework for replacing faithless presidential electors with electors who will cast votes "faithful" to a state’s popular vote, like Colorado’s law. To date, six states have adopted the UFPEA, and several other states have adopted laws that are similar to the UFPEA.
The Constitution provides for states to appoint their electors the way the state legislature directs.
"The states' broad authority to direct the manner in which the electors are appointed is further supported by the relevant federal statute, which leaves it up to each state to provide for the 'final determination of any controversy or contest' concerning the appointment of electors. Supreme Court precedent also supports the principle that states are free to regulate electors until their ballot is formally cast and that an elector does not have 'absolute freedom' to choose the candidate of her individual choice, if pledged otherwise under state law," the report explains.
The Colorado case would allow the Supreme Court to "settle critical issues of law before they arise in a crisis after a close presidential election," the brief explains.