Supreme Court Rules Against 'Faithless Electors'

Headline Roundup July 6th, 2020

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday in favor of states who choose to punish so-called "faithless electors"; members of the Electoral College who break from the group of voters they represent.

Faithless electors largely argued that their votes should be protected by free expression. Some faithless electors asked to skip the Electoral College process in favor of the popular vote. Some opponents of faithless electors warned of a possible oligopoly if those electors can break from common voters.

Supreme Court Rules Against 'Faithless Electors'

From the Left
308
ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court declined an invitation to blow up the 2020 presidential election on Monday. The justices ruled unanimously that states may compel electors, the individuals who make up the Electoral College, to vote for the winner of the statewide presidential race by either removing or fining “faithless electors.” In truth, this decision should not have been necessary: There is no serious constitutional argument that states are powerless to dictate electors’ votes. But the nation can breathe a sigh of relief that the court did not take the bait to...

Read full story
From the Center
308

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to free “faithless electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the outcome of presidential elections from state laws that force them to support the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote.

Read full story
From the Right
308

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can penalize presidential electors that go rogue and do not vote for the candidate who won their state, also known as faithless electors.

The decision was unanimous from the high court and a blow to a Democratic-aligned movement to chip away at the Electoral College.

The court in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca evaluated legal challenges to state laws that required electors to follow the will of their state’s voters.

Read full story