Today the Supreme Court hears two cases that ask: Do the Electoral College's "electors" have a constitutional right to cast their votes for any candidate they want, regardless of who won the popular vote in their state?
-
-
So far, both Roberts and Thomas seem skeptical that the Constitution denies states the power to control their own electors. That's a bad sign for Lessig, who is pitching a textualist, originalist argument to the conservative bloc.
Show this thread -
I intensely dislike the Electoral College, which makes no sense anymore, but letting "faithless electors" do whatever they want is not the way to abolish it. That's just a recipe for disaster. The 2020 election doesn't need any more chaos injected into it.
Show this thread -
Alito raises the practical consequences of Lessig's position: The losing party would "launch a massive campaign" to flip faithless, electors, leading to "a long period of uncertainty" over who actually won the presidency. Is that really a positive consequence? Alito wonders.
Show this thread -
Sotomayor tells Lessig: You compare electors to jurors, who can't be removed because of their vote. But jurors can be removed for all kinds of reasons—including a violation of their oath. So why can't a state remove electors for violating their pledge to support X candidate?
Show this thread -
Re: Alito's questions, just leaving this here. https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1260576108593938432 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
Kagan: You say your argument is based in "context and history," but states have directed electors to vote for a certain candidate from the beginning. Shorter Kagan: Isn't your originalist argument BS?
Show this thread -
Kavanaugh advocates for the "avoid chaos" method of judging. "If it's a close call or a tie-breaker," he says, "we should avoid chaos." Lessig is going to lose.
Show this thread -
Kavanaugh to Lessig: You frame this as states vs. electors, but isn't it also voters vs. electors? "Wouldn't your position potentially disenfranchise voters in the state?" Kavanaugh asks. "Why doesn't the 10th Amendment, the state's preexisting authority, come in?"
Show this thread -
We'll see if the tides turn, but right now I forecast a 9–0 loss for Lessig. None of the justices want chaos, and the conservatives aren't buying Lessig's ersatz originalist argument—which, after all, would *restrict* a state's power to control electors.
Show this thread -
Noah Purcell, arguing against faithless electors on behalf of Washington State, raises the possibility that foreign entities might hack electors' computers, find embarrassing material, and blackmail them into voting for a particular candidate to swing the election.
Show this thread -
-
Washington State SG Noah Purcell: Lessig's theory of the Electoral College granting electors a right to be faithless is "just not the original understanding. It's an academic theory that has never been put into practice."
Show this thread -
Ginsburg asks a good question: Why has Congress always recognized the votes of faithless electors? Purcell responds: Because Congress defers to the states' authority to exercise control over their electors. Ginsburg sounds satisfied with that response.
Show this thread -
-
Alito asks if state legislatures could simply appoint "five wise electors" and declare that the state popular vote for president is advisory. Unfortunately, the answer may well be yes.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/trump-cancel-election-day-constitution-state-electors-coronavirus.html …
Show this thread -
Sotomayor asks about the 10th Amendment, which Washington State did NOT raise. "We don't think we need to rely on it," Purcell says. "States have powers unless they're limited by the federal Constitution," and the Constitution does not protect faithless electors.
Show this thread -
Noah Purcell, the Washington State SG, is doing really well. Calm, coherent, eloquent, persuasive but not too excitable. This is his third argument before the U.S. Supreme Court; you can listen to his first two here. https://www.oyez.org/advocates/noah_purcell …
Show this thread -
Gorsuch asks Purcell if there's a constitutional distinction between fining faithless electors (as Washington State previously did) and disqualifying their vote (as it does now). Asks if the latter is consistent with constitutional procedures that govern the Electoral College.
Show this thread -
Kavanaugh asks Purcell: "If you're right about the electors not having this kind of discretion ... I wanted to get your take on a provision of Article II, Section I that says no senator or representative ... shall be appointed an elector." We're getting into the weeds here!!!!!
Show this thread -
Every justice asked Purcell good questions, but I sense they were probing for a limiting principle, not seriously challenging his premise. Nothing altered my prediction that Lessig will lose, although it'll be interesting to see what limiting principles the justices identify.
Show this thread -
For better or worse, we now have ANOTHER hour of arguments over faithless electors. Why? Sotomayor has to recuse from the second case because she's friends with a faithless elector–litigant.https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/10/politics/sotomayor-faithless-electors/index.html …
Show this thread -
The court originally intended to hear both faithless electors case at once, argued in a single hour. After Sotomayor recused from one case, the court un-consolidated them, so we get two hours of arguments. Sotomayor won't participate this time around.
Show this thread -
~The justices are taking a bathroom break in between arguments~
Show this thread -
Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser is up now, arguing against faithless electors. Roberts wants to know if there are ANY limitations on the power of the state to appoint electors or direct their votes. Again, a sensible hunt for a limiting principle.
Show this thread -
RBG: "Can you give us an idea of the practical consequences of ... a ruling against you?" Weiser: "The chaos that could result from upholding the 10th Circuit's ruling ... could occasion a constitutional crisis." Says bad actors could bribe electors with impunity.
Show this thread -
Alito asks: Suppose the legislature is in the hands of a political party whose presidential candidate loses the statewide vote. Could the legislature simply remove electors pledged to the winning candidate and replace them? (Weiser says no.)
Show this thread -
Weiser says a state legislature could tell voters before the election that their presidential ballots won't count, then appoint any electors it wants. But a state legislature could NOT hold a popular vote for president, reject the result, and appoint different electors.
Show this thread -
Gorsuch: What would prohibit a state from passing a law that says all electors have to vote for the presidential candidate who support a specific position? The answer may be: nothing. So many of these questions really reveal problems with the Electoral College itself
Show this thread -
BTW
@rickhasen is absolutely right here: Both Washington State and Colorado are relying on principles laid out in Bush v. Gore, but won't say its name because ... well, you know.https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1260595395626852353 …Show this thread -
Jason Harrow is now arguing on behalf of Colorado's faithless electors. He inches right up to saying, yeah, the system we're advocating is insane, but so is the Electoral College, so we need to abolish it via constitutional amendment.
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.