[ad_1]
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday night that presidential voters who voted for the president and vice president are free to vote as they please and can not be held to follow the results of the popular vote in their country.
This decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election – if the popular vote results in an apparent link between the constituency and the constituency.
"This problem could be a time bomb in our divided politics.It's not hard to imagine that an unfaithful voter, voting differently from his state, can trigger a close presidential election," he said. said Mark Murray, senior political editor of NBC News publisher.
This has not really been a problem in US political history, because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, he or she simply throws the ballot. But Tuesday's decision says states can not do that.
The decision, made by a panel of three judges from the US 10th Federal Court of Appeal in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic voter in 2016. Under state law, he was held to vote for Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote of the state. Instead, he erased his name and wrote in John Kasich, Republican then Governor of Ohio.
The secretary of state sacked Baca as a voter, dismissed his vote and sent for another voter to vote for Clinton. In a 2-1 decision, the court of appeal declared that the cancellation of Baca's vote was unconstitutional.
When voters go to the polls in presidential elections, they vote for a list of voters chosen by the candidates' political parties. States are free to choose their constituents as they see fit, said Tuesday's decision, and may even force voters to loyally pledge their political parties.
But once the voters are chosen and they show up in December to vote, as members of the constituency, they fulfill a federal function and the authority of a state is over. "The power of states to appoint voters does not include the power to revoke or cancel their votes," the court said.
As the Constitution does not provide for the obligation for voters to follow the wishes of a political party, "voters, once appointed, are free to vote as they please", provided that they voted for a legally qualified candidate.
In total, 30 states have laws that bind voters, forcing them to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote of that state. But the laws are weak and provide only nominal sanctions for so-called "voters without faith or faith" who do not conform to the popular vote.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they demand that voters agree to respect the popular vote. But the judges never said it was constitutional to implement these promises.
Lawyers said Tuesday's decision was the first of a federal court of appeal on the issue of unfaithful voters. It immediately applies to the six states of the 10th circuit: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kanas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
"This court decision takes the power of Colorado voters and creates a dangerous precedent," said Jena Griswold, Colorado State Secretary. "Our country is based on the principle of" one person, one voice. "We are reviewing this decision with our lawyers and will vigorously protect Colorado voters."
The Federal Court's decision contradicts a decision by the Washington State Supreme Court in May that voters must follow the results of the popular vote. "The voting power of voters comes from the state and the voter has no personal right to that role," the court said.
Lawyers from the non-profit Equal Citizens Association, which represented voters from Washington State and Baca Colorado, announced that they would appeal Washington's decision to the Supreme Court .
"We know that the electoral college competitions will be closer than in the past. And as they get closer and closer, even a small number of voters could change the results of an election, "said Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, Equal founder. Citizens and being part of his legal team. " system or not, we think that it is essential to solve it before it decides on an election. "
If the Supreme Court chooses to resolve the dispute, it would have time to decide on the issue before the December 2000 Electoral College meeting to formally vote in the presidency.
[ad_2]
Source link