Folks, please read the actual opinion instead of relying on a leftwing nutjob site like Yahoo.
For those of you worrying that this somehow means a National Popular Vote Compact can somehow be constitutional, don't jump to conclusions yet. I don't read this opinion as saying that at all.
From the summary on pages 1-2 of the opinion:
"(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period. Or more substantively, a State can insist (as Ray allowed) that the elector
pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee, thus tracking the State’s popular vote. Or—so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle—a State can add an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty. Which is to say that the State’s appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington’s."
I kind of agree. If the law states that the elector HAS to vote a certain way, it negates the whole point in having an elector. It's ceremonial, he's just conveying the decision he's ordered to vote upon pain of death, or something vague.
Yes, that can occur if the state passes a law saying that.
Do you understand how the electoral college works? The U.S. Constitution gives each state electors equal to the number of representatives (House) and senators combined. It does not and has never stated how the states will select their electors. In fact, as I recall, some (or perhaps all) states did not even originally allow electors to be chosen by a statewide popular vote. This is similar to senators be chosen by state legislatures and not the people until the 17th Amendment was passed.
If the state's selection process does not violate another section of the constitution, it is constitutional.
Folks, please read the actual opinion instead of relying on a leftwing nutjob site like Yahoo.
For those of you worrying that this somehow means a National Popular Vote Compact can somehow be constitutional, don't jump to conclusions yet. I don't read this opinion as saying that at all.
From the summary on pages 1-2 of the opinion:
"(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period. Or more substantively, a State can insist (as Ray allowed) that the elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee, thus tracking the State’s popular vote. Or—so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle—a State can add an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty. Which is to say that the State’s appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington’s."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Heh... but note... it doesn’t actually block the elector from being faithless...
The vote is still the electors
Electors are blocked from being faithless if the state's law prohibit them from doing that.
Then it’s not an actual electoral college... nor is there even a point to having electors.
It just means that if the elector doesn’t vote according to the states law that they can be punished.
What are they going to do? Revoke the electors vote?
I kind of agree. If the law states that the elector HAS to vote a certain way, it negates the whole point in having an elector. It's ceremonial, he's just conveying the decision he's ordered to vote upon pain of death, or something vague.
Yes, that can occur if the state passes a law saying that.
Do you understand how the electoral college works? The U.S. Constitution gives each state electors equal to the number of representatives (House) and senators combined. It does not and has never stated how the states will select their electors. In fact, as I recall, some (or perhaps all) states did not even originally allow electors to be chosen by a statewide popular vote. This is similar to senators be chosen by state legislatures and not the people until the 17th Amendment was passed.
If the state's selection process does not violate another section of the constitution, it is constitutional.