OK, I have been pushing for petitions, etc, but here is an action item which really can make a difference if we push hard to get the AGs in states Clinton won to get on board.
Lawrence Lessig, from Harvard Law, has a really great post up about how one can argue that the “winner take all” approach most states use to choose electors is in fact unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. He points out that part of the Bush v Gore case in fact sets important precedent for this, and he puts forward a first draft outline of the argument written by a friend of his. The point is that state Attornies General in states Clinton won would have to file to the supreme court for an immediate injunction against the electoral college until this is remedied. Lessig’s friends provides a helpful spreadsheet showing scenarios that could pass the equal protection clause. They essentially mimic the popular vote.
Lessig points out that he is not bringing up the small state vs. big state impact that is baked into the constitution. That would require a full on change to the constitution.
Here is the kind of request you would want to put forward to your AG:
"I urge AG ____ to work with AGs in other states Clinton won to argue that the current 'winner take all' method for states to allocate electors violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution and seek an immediate injunction in the US Supreme Court against the electoral college until this is remedied."
The above list of phone numbers was provided by Andrea Chalupa — here is her tweet thread on this important action:
(Correction: Bush v Gore was in 2000 — minor detail!)
This feels like WAY less of a long shot than getting electors to flip or finding that recounts reverse states.
LET’S ROLL! CALL, SHARE, MAKE THIS GO VIRAL!
Monday, Dec 5, 2016 · 10:11:17 PM +00:00
Following some of the discussion, I changed the ‘majority rules’ phrase to ‘winner take all’. What I meant of course is that with the exception of NE and ME, all states choose electors based upon all going to the victor. This is NOT prescribed by the constitution and could be subject to an equal protection clause challenge. This not the same as the way we pick senators or small states get electoral votes which are baked into the constitution.
I am not advocating we get rid of a majority choosing the candidate contrary to the comments, nor is Lessig — the challenge is to the majority rules in the since of winner take all.