Supreme Court ponders state's limits on presidential electors

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Supreme Court justices wrangled Wednesday with whether states can penalize presidential electors who vote their conscience rather than party, and the potential political consequences if they cannot.

They heard arguments in a case of an Everett man and two other Washington residents who went rogue in 2016 by breaking their pledge to cast their Electoral College votes for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote.

The trio contend electors can, under the Constitution, back the candidate of their choice. But the Secretary of State ruled otherwise and fined each $1,000. Washington’s Supreme Court upheld the fines in 2019.

“Do the states have the power to control through law how an elector may vote? They do not,” said Lawrence Lessig, attorney for the three electors. “The states get to appoint, no doubt, but they appoint electors who are then privileged to cast their votes without regulation by the state.”

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/supreme-court-ponders-states-limits-on-presidential-electors/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=64cf659a51-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-64cf659a51-228635337

[Jeebo]

1. There was a "faithless elector" in D.C. in 2000.

As I recall, she wouldn't cast her vote for either candidate. She said it was in protest against the lack of representation in the House and Senate for the District of Columbia's voters.

-- Ron