Judges fear anarchy if representatives of the Electoral College hold an independent rein

Judges fear anarchy if representatives of the Electoral College hold an independent rein
Judges fear anarchy if representatives of the Electoral College hold an independent rein

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a debate in cases challenging the states' efforts to punish representatives of the Electoral College, who do not promise to support the presidential candidate.

Under state law, representatives of the Electoral College agree to cast their vote for the candidate who holds the popular vote in their state. But in 2016, seven delegates voted on candidates who had not committed to support.

The argument has challenged laws in Washington and Colorado, among states that have tried to avoid enacting legislation to end "such voter" votes or to fix them or both.

In the Washington case, judges pressured Lawrence Lessig, the voters' advocate, in his position that voters were only doing what the Founding Fathers had imagined: using their independent judgment and discretion.

Washington does not like the design of the Constitution, "he said." It asks this court to read the word 'elector' as 'agent' or perhaps 'minion'. "

But Judge Ruth Beder Ginsburg replied, "The concept to which I am bound is a little difficult to understand, but that promise cannot be implemented."

Judge Samuel Alito said a decision would mean anarchy for voters, a comment sung by Judge Brett Kavanaugh: "Just being realistic, judges will worry about anarchy."

Representing Washington State, Attorney General Noah Purcell said that if states were unable to unnecessarily punish or eliminate voters, it would "fundamentally change the way US presidential elections have always worked in our country." . "

However, the High Court rules that cases are likely to focus on electoral shortcomings and uncertainties in an era when two presidential candidates lose the popular vote but win the presidential election due to the Electoral College.

The case is the second in two days that could be the result for the 2020 presidential election. On Tuesday, judges heard arguments in some cases related to President Trump's financial records.

Arguments were broadcast on audio on Wednesday and judges participated through conference calls due to measures of social reform amid the outbreak of coronovirus. Here is a summary of the cases heard by phone.

Post a Comment

0 Comments