Sorry if this news is already posted. I couldn’t find it.

“The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states´ popular vote winner in the Electoral College – in a ruling that would squelch efforts by 'rogue' faithless electors in 2020.

The court held unanimously that states are entitled to tell their electors they have 'no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens' – after Washington State sought to slap $1,000 fines on electors who ignored their pledges.

'That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote.”

https://mol.im/a/8494625

Easy decision and IMO, it takes away the gamesmanship that some states were inclined to try via allowing electors to not follow the voters.

In theory, you could a popular vote where Trump received 100% of the state's vote but the faithless electoral college members could get together and decide that someone else on the ballot who didn't a single vote should have all the EC votes.

Justices knew this needed to be 9-0.

It is posted in the Trump thread. Might be worth it's own though.

It is an interesting thing. The left is trying to spin this hard.

One headline i am seeing.

"FEATURED
Supreme Court allows states to force electors to support popular vote candidate"

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Easy decision and IMO, it takes away the gamesmanship that some states were inclined to try via allowing electors to not follow the voters.

In theory, you could a popular vote where Trump received 100% of the state's vote but the faithless electoral college members could get together and decide that someone else on the ballot who didn't a single vote should have all the EC votes.

Justices knew this needed to be 9-0.

Actually, Electors don't follow the voters--they follow the laws enacted by their State. Most States require all the Electors to vote for the candidate that received the majority (or maybe plurality) of popular votes in that State. A few direct the Electors to vote along the lines of each Congressional District's vote, with (probably) the Electors for the Senators going with the overall State vote. Were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to become active, participating States would allot all their Electoral votes to the candidate that won the overall countrywide popular vote. It all depends on what the individual State has enacted into law.

What the SCOTUS just ruled is that States can punish Electors who do not follow the law in their State and for any reason decide to vote a different way from that prescribed. It does not give the federal government any power, just confirms that the States have the right to enforce their own laws on the matter.

flashguy

quote:

Were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to become active, participating States would allot all their Electoral votes to the candidate that won the overall countrywide popular vote.

This would effectively end the electoral college and a candidate would only need to campaign in the most populated states to win the presidency.

quote:

Originally posted by sig2392:

quote:

Were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to become active, participating States would allot all their Electoral votes to the candidate that won the overall countrywide popular vote.

This would effectively end the electoral college and a candidate would only need to campaign in the most populated states to win the presidency.

Yep. It would mean that Presidents would be chosen by the voters in the dozen or so largest cities in the country, and those that live in the other 99% of the land would have no choice. We'd get a President allegiant only to urban interests.

Fortunately, that Compact has not yet been adopted by enough States to make it active. And there is serious controversy as to whether or not it is even Constitutional (there is some rule forbidding States to enter into contracts with each other).

flashguy

quote:

Were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to become active, participating States would allot all their Electoral votes to the candidate that won the overall countrywide popular vote.

Given that this ruling doesn't require States to Bind their Electors, merely allowing the option, it doesn't really do much to stop the Popular Vote movement. States who lean that way can still go with Unbound Electors and can still end around the EC, and if enough of them manage to do it the EC is effectively dead.

States under Conservative control can bind them, but those States weren't the problem anyway.