Hey boys and girls. Read the following very carefully.
Don’t just glance at it. It’s another scheme by the left along the lines of their attempts to do away with the electoral college. This is almost as bad. Read this carefully!
Warning of 2020 presidential election chaos based on Supreme ruling
There will be “chaos” in the 2020 presidential election if the Supreme Court decides that states cannot require Electoral College electors to vote for the candidate their voters select, warns an analysis by two legal scholars.
“The timing could not be worse,” wrote Paul M. Smith and Adav Noti, both of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, which filed a brief in support of states in two cases.
In the two cases – Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca – a designated Electoral College elector chose not to vote for the candidate that earned the most popular votes in the state. The electors were replaced and were sued.
“The court, as is its wont, might decide that question by parsing how the Framers anticipated the Electoral College would operate. But there would be immediate real-world consequences of ‘unbinding’ presidential electors – consequences that could throw the 2020 presidential election into chaos,” wrote Smith and Noti.
According to the Constitution, voters in presidential elections actually choose a preferred slate of electors rather than a candidate.
However, electors are expected to support the candidate selected by the states’ voters.
But if the Supreme Court rule they are free to support the candidate of their choice, the 538 members of the Electoral would become “the most important elected officials in the nation.”
And they would be targeted by people with nefarious goals, warned Smith and Noti.
“Here’s the scary part: Of the four most important federal anti-corruption laws, not one covers presidential electors,” they wrote. “Electors can accept unlimited amounts of money in connection with their official duties. And they don’t even need to tell anyone.”
Historically, the writers acknowledge, “most electors have been faithful to their states’ voters, even when not legally required to do so.”
“So in an election in which the results show a sweeping nationwide consensus, it seems unlikely that financial or other incentives could change enough electors’ minds to affect the ultimate result,” they wrote.
“But if the election night results are close – like the 271-267 electoral vote tally in 2000 – and the next president of the United States could be selected by ‘flipping’ one or two individuals, a staggering magnitude of financial and other pressure could be brought to bear on those people.”
Oral arguments are scheduled soon before the Supreme Court, and a decision is expected in months.
Colorado appealed a lower-court ruling that favored elector Michael Baca. The court concluded the state’s presidential electors are not required to follow state rules and vote for the presidential candidate who received the most votes in the state.
Twenty-two other states have expressed support for Colorado’s position.
The Associated Press reported there were 10 faithless electors in 2016, with four in Washington state, a Democratic elector in Hawaii and two Republican electors in Texas. Democratic electors who said they would not vote for Clinton were replaced in Maine and Minnesota.