End of faithless electors? Judge orders electors in Colorado to vote for Hillary in accordance with state law - same in Alaska

Sputnik
Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:56 UTC

© AFP

A federal judge has ordered presidential electors in Colorado to vote for Hillary Clinton, after they filed a lawsuit seeking the right to vote for someone else, in an attempt to block the election of Donald Trump.

Colorado electors Polly Baca, a former state Senator, and Robert Nemanich, have campaigned for the right to vote against the will of the people, seeking to choose a candidate they think would be a better president. The duo filed a lawsuit arguing that presidential electors have a constitutional right to cast their vote for any qualified candidate, regardless of the November 8 election outcome.

Laws regarding electors vary from state to state, but in Colorado they dictate that an elector must vote for the presidential ticket that receives the most votes during the election. The penalty for breaking this law can include a $1,000 fine or up to one year in prison.

Though Baca and Nemanich are both Democrats, they were willing to vote for a Republican candidate other than the President-elect, if electors bound to him also switch, in an attempt to deny Trump the 270 electoral votes required to win. Only one Republican, Texas elector Chris Suprun, has agreed to go along with their plan.

"The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states' votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence," Suprun wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times. "Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn't clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him."

During the court hearing, the Colorado attorney general's office argued that the efforts of the electors to cast their vote based on their interpretation of statutes undermines democracy.

"What we're asking the court to do is protect against the chaos that would ensue from faithless electors failing to perform their state law duties," Chris Jackson argued.

An attorney representing Baca and Nemanich argued that the ruling is an "abridgment of free speech and free expression," and stated that they are considering an appeal.

"The electors were created so that they, as a deliberative body, would be 'detached' and less prone to be influenced by the 'heats and ferments' of a raucous election," the eight-page complaint filed with the court had stated. "The electors would help ensure 'the office of President [would] never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.' The electors create an 'obstacle' to 'cabal, intrigue, and corruption' and prevent 'foreign powers [from] gain[ing] an improper ascendant in our councils.'"

"The Electoral College, then, including Plaintiffs, must be free to vote for any candidate so as to avoid electing someone, such as Messrs. Trump and Pence, who only have '[t]alents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.'"

On Monday, District Judge Wiley Daniel, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, called the elector's lawsuit a "political stunt."

The Ballot Access Manager previously wrote to the duo stating that they would be replaced if they did not vote for the candidate selected by the state's popular vote. Their right to replace an elector that does not comply was upheld by Denver Judge Elizabeth Starrs.

Comment: (Link to the text of the lawsuit here.)

A federal judge in Seattle, Washington, and another in San Jose, California, also rejected attempts by electors to avoid being fined for disregarding the state's presidential popular vote. Thankfully the judiciary system is not bending to the attempts of so-called Hamilton electors to go against federal law because they are precious snowflakes who aren't able to handle losing. Also, it is part of Congress' duty to ensure a peaceful transition of executive power after an election:

Sec. 2. The Congress declares it to be the purpose of the Act to promote the orderly transfer of the executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office of a President and the inauguration of a new President. The national interest requires that such transitions in the office of President be accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign.

Any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people. Accordingly, it is the intent of the Congress that appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid or minimize any disruption. In addition to the specific provisions contained in this Act directed toward that purpose, it is the intent of the Congress that all officers of the Government so conduct the affairs of the Government for which the exercise responsibility and authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by transitions in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly transitions in the office of President.

Update (December 16): The Colorado challengers appealed on Friday.

The Tenth Circuit on Friday evening denied the Colorado electors' request for an injunction. A three-judge panel found that the electors failed to point to specific provisions of the US Constitution that supported their argument, and didn't show how they would suffer irreparable harm if the court denied their request for an emergency injunction.

A similar lawsuit in Alaska, brought by a Clinton supporter, has been righteously squashed:

A federal judge in Alaska has thrown out a lawsuit brought by a Hillary Clinton supporter seeking to prevent the state's three electoral college voters from casting votes for President-elect Donald Trump.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess said the electoral college is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. He said in a written order that Janice Park's remedy rested not with the courts but with the constitutional amendment process.

Park, of Anchorage, claimed that electors casting votes for Trump would violate her Fifth Amendment right of equal protection and deny her the principle of one person, one vote. She based her claim on the fact that Clinton is winning the popular vote but will lose the electoral college.