I've read elsewhere that the electors can still vote against their states, but will be prosecuted/fined for that behavior. Can anyone confirm this? If Soros is willing to pay the fines this may not matter much.
It seems the Supreme Court just decided that whatever a state wants to do here is fine, and up to the state to decide.
Right now, some states have laws in place that faithless electors have to pay a fine. One state that I'm aware of says that faithless electors cannot exist.
I always considered this unconstitutional. It seems the Supreme Court just decided that states can do whatever it wants in this regard.
It doesn't make sense for the constitution to specifically say each state gets X electors if it was just about state's rights. If it was about states rights, it would say each state gets X weight in their vote.
Since the constitution specifically requires people here, and allows each one to vote different than the others, it would seem to imply they should be able to make up their own mind. The state can only select people to vote, but then they vote how they wish.
Sort of like how a judge can be appointed, but then can basically rule as they see fit. They cannot be fined or thrown out because they made a ruling whoever appointed them disagreed with.
I've read elsewhere that the electors can still vote against their states, but will be prosecuted/fined for that behavior. Can anyone confirm this? If Soros is willing to pay the fines this may not matter much.
It seems the Supreme Court just decided that whatever a state wants to do here is fine, and up to the state to decide.
Right now, some states have laws in place that faithless electors have to pay a fine. One state that I'm aware of says that faithless electors cannot exist.
I always considered this unconstitutional. It seems the Supreme Court just decided that states can do whatever it wants in this regard.
I suppose that's how it should be, states rights after all.
It doesn't make sense for the constitution to specifically say each state gets X electors if it was just about state's rights. If it was about states rights, it would say each state gets X weight in their vote.
Since the constitution specifically requires people here, and allows each one to vote different than the others, it would seem to imply they should be able to make up their own mind. The state can only select people to vote, but then they vote how they wish.
Sort of like how a judge can be appointed, but then can basically rule as they see fit. They cannot be fined or thrown out because they made a ruling whoever appointed them disagreed with.