# Electors take anti-Trump battle to court **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 6, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061 "2016-12-06T22:40:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/1 "2016-12-06T22:40:52Z")
Is there any legal merit to this? [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/presidential-electors-lawsuit-trump-232255](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/presidential-electors-lawsuit-trump-232255) > [@](#): > > Two presidential electors in Colorado are heading to court Tuesday to try and boost their extreme long-shot gambit to stop Donald Trump from officially being elected president when the Electoral College votes on Dec. 19. > > Democratic electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich are filing suit in federal court to overturn a state law that forces them to support the winner of Colorado’s presidential popular vote, in this case Hillary Clinton. But a successful bid, they say, would undermine similar laws in 28 other states, empowering Republican electors in those states to reject Trump. > > In the legal filing, obtained by POLITICO, lawyers for Baca and Nemanich argue that Colorado’s statute is flatly unconstitutional because the Founding Fathers intended presidential electors to have free will when casting their votes — and to consider the popular vote as merely advisory. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/2 "2016-12-06T22:46:42Z")
Most constitutional scholars are in agreement that faithless elector laws are not enforceable. I don’t know whether or not it is meritorious to argue the case before any such enforcement is attempted, however. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/3 "2016-12-06T22:50:32Z")
It’s also tough for them to claim standing, when they’re (presumably) not the ones who intend to vote otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/4 "2016-12-06T22:53:09Z")
Time is not on their side … 12 and 1/2 days to go :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/5 "2016-12-06T23:04:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’s also tough for them to claim standing, when they’re (presumably) not the ones who intend to vote otherwise. Also, they haven’t been actually harmed yet. I’m not a law-talking guy, but aren’t you supposed to demonstrate harm, or imminent harm? Seems like a court would think that even if they decided to vote for Bernie Sanders or whomever, that there’s a good chance that the state would not prosecute. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/6 "2016-12-06T23:16:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’s also tough for them to claim standing, when they’re (presumably) not the ones who intend to vote otherwise. The article says that they’re being forced to vote for Clinton, so it sounds to me like they may be Sanders supporters who are being forced to vote for Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/7 "2016-12-06T23:23:18Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > The article says that they’re being forced to vote for Clinton, so it sounds to me like they may be Sanders supporters who are being forced to vote for Clinton. And I’m not sure that’s even important. If my state passed a law that said I had to have sex with Salma Hayek twice a week, pretty sure I’d have standing even if the law didn’t particularly distress me. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/8 "2016-12-06T23:26:08Z")
So some people want to stop Trump, ‘_because the popular vote is merely advisory_’; and others seek to stop Trump because he didn’t win the popular vote. Goodness. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/9 "2016-12-06T23:26:50Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > If my state passed a law that said I had to have sex with Salma Hayek twice a week, pretty sure I’d have standing It’d be a damned shame if you didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/10 "2016-12-07T00:13:04Z")
As I understand it, the “enforcement” in those states that mandate faithful electors is no more than a civil penalty – i.e.- a nominal fine. The only states where it truly matters are just the two (I believe) where electors who don’t vote as required don’t get their vote counted. So it would seem the electors in all other states except those two can in theory vote how they want, and face either nominal civil penalties or no consequences at all. It would also turn the whole democratic process on its ear if large numbers of electors defected. I just don’t see it happening regardless of how this court case turns out. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/11 "2016-12-07T00:16:15Z")
So the electors are, in effect, arguing for an oligarchy? That seems rather illiberal. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/12 "2016-12-07T00:19:30Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > And I’m not sure that’s even important. If my state passed a law that said I had to have sex with Salma Hayek twice a week, pretty sure I’d have standing even if the law didn’t particularly distress me. Among other positions. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/13 "2016-12-07T00:26:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > As I understand it, the “enforcement” in those states that mandate faithful electors is no more than a civil penalty – i.e.- a nominal fine. The only states where it truly matters are just the two (I believe) where electors who don’t vote as required don’t get their vote counted. > > So it would seem the electors in all other states except those two can in theory vote how they want, and face either nominal civil penalties or no consequences at all. > > It would also turn the whole democratic process on its ear if large numbers of electors defected. I just don’t see it happening regardless of how this court case turns out. It’s not a democratic process, so by all means let’s turn it on its ear. I’m not a fan of chaos, but this election was an endorsement if it. A constitutional crisis would be acceptable if it led to the destruction of the Electoral College. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/14 "2016-12-07T00:36:47Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So the electors are, in effect, arguing for an oligarchy? That seems rather illiberal. Only if you would also consider our justice system to be an oligarchy. Imagine if juries would be fined if they failed to vote in accordance with the judge, or in accordance with town-wide polling based on tabloid articles instead of having sat in the court and heard the arguments and seen the evidence. I think we should be able to agree that the first is antithetical to the ideals of the nation, and the latter simply stupid. Tasking individuals, temporarily, to donate their time to do research and become informed, so that they can make a reasoned and impartial, one-time decision is not an oligarchy. It’s not necessarily the best system, but it’s certainly a reasonable one and better than the proposed alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/15 "2016-12-07T00:46:17Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > It’s not a democratic process, so by all means let’s turn it on its ear. I’m not a fan of chaos, but this election was an endorsement if it. A constitutional crisis would be acceptable if it led to the destruction of the Electoral College. To you, would it be worth a civil war to eliminate the Electoral College? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/16 "2016-12-07T00:58:53Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > It’s not a democratic process, so by all means let’s turn it on its ear. I’m not a fan of chaos, but this election was an endorsement if it. A constitutional crisis would be acceptable if it led to the destruction of the Electoral College. A constitutional crisis would be acceptable if it prevented an unqualified buffoon from taking office, but it ain’t gonna happen, despite the fact that such erratic behavior by the masses was precisely why the EC was created and _ **written into** _ the Constitution. The effective popular vote weighting created by the EC is not significantly different than that created by seat/riding distributions in parliamentary systems, and anyway, worrying about the long term of the EC at this point is like the passengers on the Titanic being worried about the long term future of ocean navigation as the water rises up to their eyeballs. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/17 "2016-12-07T01:10:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > To you, would it be worth a civil war to eliminate the Electoral College? To me, “constitutional crisis” evokes an image of judicial processes making their way through the courts. Not every political disagreement has to erupt in shootings and bloodshed, but I admit I can’t speak for the core constituency of Trumpsters. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/18 "2016-12-07T03:21:34Z")
I just don’t see a constitutional crisis if the electors vote for someone else. That’s what they are there for, as a veto on the public if the public does something ill advised. And in this case, Clinton won the popular vote. There is plenty of justification to just elect a third person and declare that both major candidates failed to win sufficient public support. One useful constitutional change that could alter the EC would be to force another election(probably in early January) where the public would choose between the nominal EC winner(Trump) and the EC’s actual choice. That would make electors more comfortable in choosing someone else, yet still give the public a chance to reaffirm their choice if they feel strongly. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/19 "2016-12-07T03:30:50Z")
Just my opinion, but the “faithless elector” laws have always seemed constitutionally dubious. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061/20 "2016-12-07T04:00:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > To you, would it be worth a civil war to eliminate the Electoral College? Depends on what kind of Civil War you have in mind. Random bloodshed and rioting? No. A repeat of the actual American Civil War, and this time the North would be rid of the South forever and ever? Fuck yeah. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electors-take-anti-trump-battle-to-court/774061.md?page=2)