The Supreme Court said that electoral college cases can cause 'chaos'

The Supreme Court said that electoral college cases can cause 'chaos'
The Supreme Court said that electoral college cases can cause 'chaos'

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court settled a dispute over whether electoral college voters had the constitutional right to separate from their state's popular vote in two cases that could have implications for the November presidential election.

The votes envisaged what would happen if voters accepted a bribe, were hacked by a foreign government, or voted on a giraffe.

The judges heard from lawyers for presidential voters in the states of Colorado and Washington, who in 2016 refused to support Hillary Clinton despite victories in those states. Like most states, Colorado and Washington require electoral college voters according to the state's popular vote.

The case in question is whether state law may require electoral college voters to vote for a candidate who wins the state's popular vote. The lower courts of Colorado and Washington were on the opposite side of the issue. In January, the superior court agreed to intervene.

A so-called "Kafir voter" has never influenced the outcome of the United States presidential election. However, lawyers on both sides have warned that it may be in a close race.

The judges' questions largely focused on what limitations apply to both voters and states when regulating voting for indirect presidential selection in the system of the electorate.

Larry Legg, an attorney representing voters in Colorado, and Jason Harrow, who represents voters in Colorado, argued that once convicted, states could only expose electoral college voters to crimes such as bribery Huh.

While states can commit voters to support the candidate who wins the popular vote, they cannot punish the voter who violated that promise, he argued.

State attorneys argued that voters could be more strictly regulated. Colorado Attorney General Philip Weser said in his view, a state may prohibit voters who do not visit the state.

The debate started at 10 am. ET and lasted just two and a half hours. They were broadcast by telephone and broadcast live to the public as a precaution against the spread of coronavirus.

President Donald Trump faced Democratic candidate Joey Biden in the November contest. Decisions in cases are expected during the summer.

Judges will worry about chaos

Some judges warned that siding with presidential voters could create "chaos" in future presidential elections.

Judges Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh pressured Lesik about the possibility that a victory for his clients would create chaos.

"Do you deny that this is a good possibility?" Alito asked Lessig.

Kawanaru later said, "I want to follow Judge Alito's question line and decide what I can do to avoid chaos." Kavanugh said that when a case is "a closed decision or a tiebreaker", the High Court usually refrains from reducing uncertainty.

"Just being realistic, the judges will worry about the chaos," Kavanugh said.

Lessig replied that the possibility of anarchy was "extremely small."

"There's chaos in both ways," Lessig said.

Post a Comment