There are some states that have laws requiring Electors to vote for the candidate that won the state’s election. I understand that there may be some questions concerning the constitutionality of such laws, but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that they are Constitutional and enforceable.
Normally, when a presidential candidate is choosing his/her running mate, s/he makes sure to choose a running mate from a different state. The reason for this is that the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution requires that at least one of the people that the Electors vote for must not be from the same state as the Elector. So, in order to make sure that they don’t “forfeit” the state, the candidate for president and vice president are usually from different states.
But let’s say that in 2024, Joe Smith from Wyoming is running and really feels that having Cindy Jones, also from Wyoming, would really help his administration. Since Wyoming is only 3 EV, they agree to give up the state for the sake of having a really good team in office.
Wyoming, however, is one of the states with faithless elector laws on the books. Now if Smith and Jones win the popular vote in Wyoming, what should the Electors do? According to the Constitution, they can’t vote for Smith and Jones. However, state law says that they must.
I suppose it could be argued that the Constitution overrules state law in this instance. However, what would actually happen?
Let’s say they vote for Smith and Jones anyway? Would Congress simply reject the votes when they tabulate them in January?
Let’s say they vote for someone else? Could Congress rule the votes out of order since they violate Wyoming state law?
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were both residents of Texas for the 2000 election. Cheney suddenly discovered he was also a resident of Wyoming. Problem solved.
Based on statements from 2 friends who have been members of the Electoral College, they can vote for anyone they want to.
Doesn’t have to be on the ballot in that state or in any state, doesn’t even have to know about it or be willing to accept it. There isn’t even any requirement that the person be eligible (over 35, not served 2 previous terms), not even required to be a natural-born citizen. Though I suppose violations of that could allow Congress to reject those votes. Otherwise, I think Congress would have to accept them. But nobody’s sure, it’s never happened.
Also, about “enforceable” – how would that happen? The Electors votes are secret, just like any citizen. How would anyone know which Elector cast the ‘illegal’ vote?
Ordinarily, faithless elector laws are probably unconstitutional, but there’s some room for debate. In the scenario you describe, though, they’d definitely be unconstitutional.
As to what would actually happen? There are three possibilities:
1: The elector votes for both members of the ticket, as state law requires. When Congress met to ratify the vote, they’d probably throw out both of that elector’s votes, for President and Vice President.
2: The elector votes for people from two different states, as the Constitution requires, and the state makes no attempt to enforce their unfaithful elector law. The votes count, and nothing further happens. The unfaithful elector law remains on the books, but it’ll probably be ignored again.
3: The elector votes for people from two different states, as the Constitution requires, and the state tries to impose whatever penalties their unfaithful elector law requires. The case goes to court, and the court strikes down the law as unconstitutional. If it gets appealed, then further courts also strike down the law.
I have a thread on Colorado’s (almost) faithless elector. The problems are:
The elector’s attorney really screwed up the case.
The Judge punted and claimed Colorado’s Secy of State would never replace the elector. In the thread you will see why the Secy of State cannot legally remove an elector.
The Secy of State replaced him anyways and since the Judge refused to grant an injuction a priori to stop him from doing that (see #2) it held up.
So a perfect case to test the constitutionality of Faithless Elector laws was completely screwed up.
The Constitution only requires a “ballot.” Some states have a secret ballot, but others provide for each elector’s ballot to be identifiable in some way (either by the ballot being marked, or by the ballot being inspected on presentation).
In your own state, each “elector shall speak aloud or affirm in a nonverbal manner the name of the candidate for president and for vice president for whom the elector is voting and then confirm that vote by written public ballot.”
When one voted for President of the USA, you are not directly voting for the person, but for the electors. In turn the electors themselves have no obligation to vote for any particular person and can vote for whomever as long as said whomever is qualified under the law of the Constitution. If 270 of them votes for Tom Hanks, then Tom Hanks is the President-Elect. In 2016 several electors voted for other people besides Clinton or Trump. There was a last ditch movement to try to get electors to not vote for Trump, which failed, but probably would have failed even if it succeeded, since the House picks the President and would have picked Trump anyway.
Yes, there are laws in a few states stipulating that the electors vote for the candidate who won under a penalty of a felony. No one has ever been prosecuted under that law and that law would be held unconstitutional anyway. America does not have direct elections for President, and an elector doesn’t have an obligation to vote for anyone, just to vote for someone.
Did you see post #7? There are absolutely states that enforce their faithless elector laws, not by prosecution, but by simply firing the elector and appointing a new one from the list of alternates.
Since changing residency is so trivial to do, esp. for politicians who quite often have more than one domicile, this is what would happen merely to ward off any potential messiness.
In the case of Bush I, he had a nominal “home” in Texas (a hotel room IIRC) as an official residence but his main personal residence while President was in Massachusetts. Could have picked either if there was a running mate conflict.
I wouldn’t think it would even get to the EC. When Wyoming was designing its ballots, the responsible official would likely refusal to place the Smith/Jones ticket on the ballot as electors who pledged to vote for that ticket would be violating the federal constitution by fulfilling their pledge.
It would be an unprecedented situation, but the national ticket would likely have to nominate a separate ticket for Wyoming to be in compliance.
Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.
If it became a court issue, I’d say the Constitution clearly takes supremacy over any state law. So the 12th Amendment prohibition on voting for two candidates from the Elector’s home state would overrule any law requiring an Elector to follow the results of the general election.
That said, we’ve seen a lot of court decisions which were decided on political grounds rather than legal ones.
If that ever went to court, I cannot see it possibly standing up.
Imagine a similar law that required candidates for state governor or the state legislature to sign a pledge regarding (abortion, gun control, etc.) with the stipulation that if elected and he or she violated the pledge (by saying, voting for background checks for gun purchases) that the now legislator would be immediately removed from office and replaced with another who voted the “correct” way.
That’s a violation of basic republican (little r) principles.
Probably. The Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors”. So it’s probably legal for a legislature to enact a law saying that an Elector has to vote in a certain way as a requirement of holding the position. And if that’s the case, an Elector who votes for somebody else is, by doing so, removing himself from his position as an Elector and making his vote invalid.
It also gives state legislators the power to provide for the rules of electing members of Congress as well, but a legislature cannot provide for term limits. See Thorton case. And certainly a state legislature could not have an automatic recall provision for voting for gun control or against any other pledge