Skip to main content

View Diary: What nobody is addressing about the Electoral Vote-rigging scheme (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think it is constitutional (0+ / 0-)

    to require a member of the electoral college to vote in a certain way.

    Yet another way this is not constitutional.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:12:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think that's a constitutional issue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey, codairem

      But rather an issue of state law. NCSL:

      Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. None of these laws have been implemented -- no elector has ever been penalized or replaced -- nor have they been fully vetted by the courts. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors:

      [List Omitted]

      Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further:  Oklahoma and Washington impose a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site