DOCSLIB.ORG

Senate Rule on the Sub- Nication from the Speaker: Correct, I Did Not File an Objection Dur- Ject

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Senate Rule on the Sub- Nication from the Speaker: Correct, I Did Not File an Objection Dur- Ject E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 163 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2017 No. 5 House of Representatives The House met at noon and was Different States handle their faith- Constitution, who stated that as the called to order by the Speaker pro tem- less electors in different ways. In my Framers wished the President to be pore (Mr. HARRIS). view, the joint session rightly fulfilled independent, ‘‘It never was intended f its constitutional responsibility by . to have given to Congress . the simply taking the certified results of right to object to any electoral vote.’’ DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO each State without intervention. This The first successful effort to expand TEMPORE was in line with precedent set in 1969 Congress’ power in counting did not The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- and with the text of the Constitution. come until 1865, when Congress adopted fore the House the following commu- Because I believe this decision to be a joint House-Senate rule on the sub- nication from the Speaker: correct, I did not file an objection dur- ject. Under the rule, no electoral vote ing the counting process. However, I that incurred an objection could be WASHINGTON, DC, counted unless both Houses agreed. January 9, 2017. wish for the RECORD to contain my The joint rule was tempered by the I hereby appoint the Honorable ANDY HAR- views on this matter and to express my Electoral Count Act of 1887, which still RIS to act as Speaker pro tempore on this concern that an avoidable constitu- day. tional crisis on this subject is a very governs the counting process to this PAUL D. RYAN, real possibility in the future. day. The law allows an objection signed Speaker of the House of Representatives. The faithless elector problem has by a House and a Senate Member. How- f often been seen as academic, but in ever, under the Electoral Count Act, 2000, Vice President Gore was three unless there is a case of double returns, MORNING-HOUR DEBATE no electoral vote regularly given and faithless electors away from the Presi- lawfully certified shall be rejected. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- dency. As a point of reference, there ant to the order of the House of Janu- In 1969, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a Repub- were 10 faithless electors in this elec- lican elector from North Carolina, was ary 3, 2017, the Chair will now recog- tion. Thus, this is not a matter that nize Members from lists submitted by faithless, and the Governor of North should be taken lightly. Carolina certified the State’s electoral the majority and minority leaders for Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the morning-hour debate. certificate with knowledge of his vote. Constitution gives the States the ex- The House and the Senate thor- The Chair will alternate recognition clusive power to appoint electors in a oughly debated whether Dr. Bailey’s between the parties, with each party manner decided by their State legisla- vote should be counted, but ultimately limited to 1 hour and each Member tures. Clause 4 provides the sole grant voted to reject the challenge. Oppo- other than the majority and minority of authority to Congress in the process nents of the challenge, in my view, leaders and the minority whip limited to determine the time for choosing properly argued that Congress lacked to 5 minutes, but in no event shall de- electors and the day they cast their the power to exclude Dr. Bailey’s vote bate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. vote. under the Electoral Count Act and, f The process to count electors is out- more importantly, Congress had no lined in Clause 3 and identical lan- FAITHLESS ELECTOR PROBLEM power to exclude his vote under the guage which superseded it in the 12th Constitution. To do so would be a vio- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Amendment. It provides that, ‘‘The lation of the rights of the sovereign Chair recognizes the gentleman from President of the Senate shall, in the States. Alabama (Mr. BYRNE) for 5 minutes. presence of the Senate and the House Some have argued that the Bailey Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, last Friday of Representatives, open all the certifi- precedent is not applicable when an the House and the Senate met to fulfill cates and the votes shall then be elector violates his or her State’s law our solemn constitutional responsi- counted. .’’ Under the 12th Amend- in casting a faithless vote. I find this bility to count the votes of electors for ment, the persons receiving a majority argument constitutionally suspect. Un- President and Vice President. This of the vote ‘‘shall be’’ the President less no candidate reaches a majority, year the joint session was confronted and Vice President. Congress’ role in the counting process with a record number of so-called The extent of what Congress’ powers appears to be ministerial: to count faithless electors—electors who were are in the counting process has been votes and announce a result. supposed to vote for the Presidential the subject of over 200 years of debate. For that reason, the issue of faithless candidates named on their States’ bal- The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from 1800 electors is rightly resolved at the State lot, but, instead, voted for someone includes a lengthy speech by Senator level, before the results reach Con- else. Charles Pinckney, a Framer of the gress. At the present time, however, a b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. H197 . VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:02 Jan 10, 2017 Jkt 069060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A09JA7.000 H09JAPT1 smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HOUSE H198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2017 hodgepodge of State laws exist to deal candidate for the position of elector who is (c) To qualify as a substitute elector under with faithless electors, some of which not nominated by a political party or unaf- subsection (b), an individual who has not ex- are ill-equipped to handle the problem. filiated presidential candidate shall submit ecuted the pledge required under Section 4 Fortunately, the Uniform Law Com- to the [Secretary of State], in addition to shall execute the following pledge: ‘‘I agree the individual’s own name as ‘‘elector nomi- to serve and to mark my ballots for Presi- mission has proposed the Faithful nee’’, the name of another qualified indi- dent and Vice President consistent with the Presidential Electors Act, which has vidual designated as ‘‘alternate elector pledge of the individual to whose elector po- already been enacted in four States. nominee’’.’’ sition I have succeeded.’’. The Faithful Presidential Electors Act SECTION 4. PLEDGE. Each elector nomi- Legislative Note: As with Sections 3 and 4, provides a State-administered pledge of nee and alternate elector nominee of a polit- adjustment of this Section is required for faithfulness, with any attempt by an ical party shall execute the following pledge: any state where unpledged electors are per- elector to submit a vote in violation of ‘‘If selected for the position of elector, I missible. For a state wishing to accommo- agree to serve and to mark my ballots for date unpledged electors, the language of sub- that pledge constituting a resignation President and Vice President for the nomi- sections (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c) could be from the office of elector. In such case, nees for those offices of the party that nomi- changed to the following: the act provides a mechanism for fill- nated me.’’ [Each elector nominee and alter- (b)(2): ‘‘if the alternate elector for the va- ing an electoral vacancy. nate elector nominee of an unaffiliated presi- cant position is not present to vote but other At the conclusion of my remarks, I dential candidate shall execute the following alternate electors who were nominated by will include in the RECORD a copy of pledge: ‘‘If selected for the position of elec- the same political party [or unaffiliated the Faithful Presidential Electors Act. tor as a nominee of an unaffiliated presi- presidential candidate] are present, by ap- In short, Mr. Speaker, based upon my dential candidate, I agree to serve and to pointing an elector chosen by lot from among those alternate electors of the same view of the Constitution, Congress mark my ballots for that candidate and for that candidate’s vice-presidential running political party [or of the same unaffiliated properly handled the issue of faithless mate.’’] The executed pledges must accom- presidential candidate] .’’ electors in this election. This election pany the submission of the corresponding (b)(3): ‘‘if the vacant position is that of an should, however, serve as a wake-up names to the [Secretary of State]. unpledged elector and the alternate elector call to States that further action on Legislative Note: This act does not deal for that vacant position is not present to their part may be necessary. with the possibility of death of a presidential vote, or if there otherwise are no alternate or vice-presidential candidate before the electors eligible for the vacant position UNIFORM FAITHFUL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS electoral college meetings, or with any other under paragraphs (1) and (2), by appointing ACT disabling condition or the discovery of dis- any immediately available individual who is (Drafted by the National Conference of Com- qualifying information.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Electoral College: What Is It Good For?
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work Spring 5-1998 The Electoral College: What Is It Good For? Jason D. Spain University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Recommended Citation Spain, Jason D., "The Electoral College: What Is It Good For?" (1998). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/282 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AppendixD- UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM SENIOR PROJECT - APPROVAL N a me: ------Ja.J:..£Q---a--~rg~-n--------------------------­ ColI e g e: _k:.L.~il£.Ll..__________ Dep a r tm e n t: _&i21~__ 1cL!l7"';'a.LJf_4E.:,:.J_ Fa cuI ty Men tor : ___''2.1f.f!LJ-y-_L~L2~:::H: .. 2. _________________________ _ p R OJ E C TTl TLE : __:t::6..r __ £.h:~f_qj__ £~e..:f5!l":' __ i::c:.~e.J.-t_iL __ Lt______ _ ____ ~~~~_J~£_? ____________________ _ I have reviewed this completed senior honors thesis with this student and certify that it is a project commensurate with honors level undergraduate research in this field. :', A1/\ '" 'v\OY\ Y :J N0fV\ e5 Signed: __-Jlv§Lb~-:Q",_}k~~S- __ ----, Faculty Mentor Date: __~ll7_1~.1J~'l~------ Comments (Optional): I" \,\, S ; ") ~ OGd COV'<3" 0..1 \A \d\-\ \ov\ $ · 27 The Electoral College: What Is It Good For? Jason D.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress
    Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress Updated October 6, 2017 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43824 Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress Summary The electoral college method of electing the President and Vice President was established in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and revised by the Twelfth Amendment. It provides for election of the President and Vice President by electors, commonly referred to as the electoral college. A majority of 270 of the 538 electoral votes is necessary to win. For further information on the modern-day operation of the college system, see CRS Report RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, by Thomas H. Neale. The electoral college has been the subject of criticism and proposals for reform since before 1800. Constitutional and structural criticisms have centered on several of its features: (1) although today all electors are chosen by the voters in the presidential election, it is claimed to be not fully democratic, since it provides indirect election of the President; (2) it can lead to the election of candidates who win the electoral college but fewer popular votes than their opponents, or to contingent election in Congress if no candidate wins an electoral college majority; (3) it results in electoral vote under- and over-representation for some states between censuses; and (4) “faithless” electors can vote for candidates other than those they were elected to support. Legislative and political criticisms include (1) the general ticket system, currently used in all states except Maine and Nebraska, which is alleged to disenfranchise voters who prefer the losing candidates in the states; (2) various asserted “biases” that are alleged to favor different states and groups; and (3) the electoral college “lock,” which has been claimed to provide an electoral college advantage to both major parties at different times.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor Robert W. Bennett in Support of State Parties ______
    Nos. 19-465, 19-518 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ PETER BRET CHIAFALO, LEVI JENNET GUERRA, AND ESTHER VIRGINIA JOHN, Petitioners, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent. ___________ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL BACA, POLLY BACA, AND ROBERT NEMANICH, Respondents. ___________ On Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PROFESSOR ROBERT W. BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF STATE PARTIES ___________ JEFFREY T. GREEN J. SAMUEL TENENBAUM* SARAH O’ROURKE SCHRUP BLUHM LEGAL CLINIC NORTHWESTERN SUPREME NORTHWESTERN PRITZKER COURT PRACTICUM SCHOOL OF LAW 375 East Chicago Ave. 375 East Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503-0063 (312) 503-4808 s-tenenbaum@ law.northwestern.edu Counsel for Amicus Curiae April 8, 2020 * Counsel of Record TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 2 I. ELECTOR DISCRETION CONTRA- VENES VOTER EXPECTATIONS ............. 5 A. The presidential ballot form in most states encourages and affirms voters’ expectations that casting a ballot direct- ly selects candidates for president and vice president of the United States .......... 5 B. The Tenth Circuit decision will invite additional constitutional litigation ......... 9 II. THE TENTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN- VITES CHAOS ............................................. 10 A. Faithless voting among electors would lead to democratic instability and unrest ....................................................... 10 B. Faithless electors who alter the outcome of an election would damage confidence in the electoral process and the incoming administration ......................................... 12 C. A system that embraces faithless elec- tors is one that courts lobbying and cor- ruption .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • What's Wrong with Bush V. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure It Never Happens Again Jamin B
    Maryland Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 Article 7 What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again Jamin B. Rasking Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Politics Commons Recommended Citation Jamin B. Rasking, What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again, 61 Md. L. Rev. 652 (2002) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol61/iss3/7 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT'S WRONG WITH BUSH V. GORE AND WHY WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN JAMIN B. RASKIN* I. Disenfranchisement as Remedy, Vote-Counting as H arm ................................................... 652 A. A Political Question Raised By a Candidate Without Standing ............................................ 653 B. And If It Had Been Gore v. Bush? ................... 660 C. Bush v. Gore: Hypocrisy and Reaction; Moral Expressivism and Legal Realism .................... 668 1. Moral Realism and Moral Expressivism ......... 670 2. Moral Realism and Legal Realism at Odds ...... 673 3. Hypocrites or Reactionaries ..................... 676 II. The People's Missing Right to Vote ..................... 679 A. The Missing Right to Vote in House and Senate Elections: Disenfranchisement in the District ....... 682 B. Territorial Subjects: The People of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam ............
    [Show full text]
  • SCHEDULE ______Friday, November 4, 2005
    ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING Southern Arkansas University Reynolds Center Grand Hall Salon C Magnolia, AR 71753 SCHEDULE ______________________________________ Friday, November 4, 2005 Finance Committee 8:30 a.m. Academic Committee 9:30 a.m. Convene Coordinating Board Meeting *10:00 a.m. *Time approximate. Meeting will begin at end of Academic Committee meeting ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING Friday, November 4, 2005 10:00 a.m. Southern Arkansas University Reynolds Center Grand Hall Salon C Magnolia, AR 71753 TABLE OF CONTENTS *1. Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting on July 29, 2005 2. Report of the Director (Dr. Beene) *3. Report of 2004-05 Intercollegiate Athletic Revenues and Expenditures (Mr. Davidson) *4. Higher Education Bond Program Plan of Implementation (Dr. Williams) *5. Distribution of Mineral Lease Fund Balance (Dr. Williams) *6. Economic Feasibility of Bond Issue for Arkansas State University--Beebe (Dr. Williams) *7. Economic Feasibility of Bond Issue for Arkansas Tech University (Mr. Davidson) *8. Economic Feasibility of Bond Issue for University of Arkansas at Monticello (Mr. Davidson) *9. Economic Feasibility of College Savings Bond Revolving Loan for Southern Arkansas University (Mr. Davidson) *10. New Program: Master of Science in Emergency Management and Homeland Security by Arkansas Tech University (Ms. Griffin) *11. New Program: Master of Science in Psychology by Arkansas Tech University (Ms. Griffin) *Action item i *12. New Program: Bachelor of Science in Nursing by University of Arkansas at Fort Smith (Ms. Griffin) *13. New Program: Technical Certificate in Cosmetology Instruction by Pulaski Technical College (Ms. Moten) *14. New Program: Technical Certificate in Computer-Aided Design by North Arkansas College (Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • COLORADO DEPARTMENT of STATE, Petitioner, V
    No. 19-518 In the Supreme Court of the United States COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL BACA, POLLY BACA, AND ROBERT NEMANICH, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE COLORADO REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER JULIAN R. ELLIS, JR. Counsel of Record CHRISTOPHER O. MURRAY BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 223-1100 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevent- ed by their appointing State from casting an Elec- toral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment for- bid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State’s popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ......................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................... 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 5 I. Political Parties’ Involvement in Selecting Nominees for Presidential Elector Is Constitutionally Sanctioned and Ubiquitous. ..... 5 A. States have plenary power over the appointment of presidential electors. ............ 5 B. Ray v. Blair expressly approved of pledges to political parties by candidates for presidential elector. ................................ 14 II. State Political Parties Must Be Allowed to Enforce Pledges to the Party by Candidates for Presidential Elector. ..................................... 17 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 22 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Cal.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
    Case 1:16-cv-02986-WYD-NYW Document 11-1 Filed 12/09/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-02986-WYD-NYW POLLY BACA and ROBERT NEMANICH Plaintiffs v. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER JR., in his official capacity as Governor of Colorado, CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Colorado, and WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State. Defendant. INTERVENOR COLORADO REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs, who have been elector candidates since April 16 and who have been electors since November 8, filed this lawsuit in December, seeking to change the ground rules under which the Electoral College operates only days before the College meets. Those ground rules— enacted by Colorado and most other States in the exercise of their “plenary” power (McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892)) to “direct” the “manner” of appointing electors (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1)—require electors to vote for the winner of the State’s popular vote. Plaintiffs’ last- minute effort to upend these laws threatens to disrupt the orderly transition of power that our nation embraces, notwithstanding President Obama’s instruction to his team to “work as hard as Case 1:16-cv-02986-WYD-NYW Document 11-1 Filed 12/09/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19 [they] can to make sure that this is a successful transition.”1 On both procedural and substantive grounds, Plaintiffs’ eleventh-hour request for extraordinary relief should be denied.
    [Show full text]
  • Faithless Electors: Keeping the Ties That Bind
    Fordham Law Review Volume 88 Issue 5 Article 14 2020 Faithless Electors: Keeping the Ties That Bind Scott Eckl Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation Scott Eckl, Faithless Electors: Keeping the Ties That Bind, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 1923 (). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss5/14 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES FAITHLESS ELECTORS: KEEPING THE TIES THAT BIND Scott Eckl* Every four years, the United States chooses a president and vice president. Millions of Americans exercise the right to vote, believing that they are voting for the candidates of their choice. In actuality, 538 relatively unknown party insiders known as electors officially choose the president a month later in fifty-one obscure meetings. Most of the time, these electors mirror the popular votes. However, whether these electors are required to do so and whether the states can enforce laws requiring them to do so are open questions. The Tenth Circuit recently declared statutes that bind electors unconstitutional. A few months before that decision, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that these laws and their enforceability are constitutional. This Note identifies the arguments for each position, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each position, and identifies any issues not considered either by legal scholars or by the courts.
    [Show full text]
  • 41-1-125-Rosin-Pdfa.Pdf (862.0Kb)
    A History of Elector Discretion MICHAEL L. ROSIN* In its opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court disposes of the actual history of elector discretion as too inconsequential to merit its serious analysis. A history of elector discretion not only includes a history of the electors who exercised discretion when casting electoral votes, it also in- cludes a history of commentary on the role of electors as the Constitution was created and, more importantly, as Congress was attempting to amend it. The Court almost completely ignores this history. When Congress crafted the Twelfth Amendment in 1803 it recognized that “the right of choice [of pres- ident] […] devolve[s] upon” the House of Representatives from the Electoral College. Section 4 of the Twentieth Amendment twice repeats this text. As the House Committee reporting the Twentieth Amendment reported it to the full House in 1932 it acknowledged that electors are free to exercise discretion. Earlier versions of this Article served as the primary input to amicus briefs filed in the author’s name in Chiafalo. This Article reviews the relevant epi- sodes of congressional history as well as election history to demonstrate that Congress has never understood the Constitution to allow electors to be bound with legal consequences. * Michael L. Rosin is an independent scholar. M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1976; M.Sc. (Econ.), London School of Economics, 1975; A.B., University of Chicago, 1973. Ear- lier versions of this Article served as the primary input to amicus briefs filed in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colo. Dep’t of State v.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposals to Reform Our Presidential Electoral System: a Survey Of
    LC 14*2/!L:9'1-/5~ port No. 84-150A 780 1107 PROPOSALS TO REFORM OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM: A SURVEY OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, AND A COMPILATION OF PROPOSALS TO REFORM IT, WITH PRO AND CON ANALYSES GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS COUECTtON Thomas M. Durbin Legislative Attorney American Law Division August 1, 1980 Updated August 1, 1984 The Congressional Research Senice works exclusivelv for the Congress, conducting research. analvzing legdaticn. and providing information at the request of committees, hlern- bers, and their staffs. The Service makes such research available, without parti- san bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compila- tions, digests, and background briefings. Upon request, CRS assists committees in analyzing legslative proposals and issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields of expertise. CRS -iii ABSTRACT Tnie report discusses the present nethod of electin6 the President by the dlectoral Gollege. This report discusses the various state laws relating to the nomination and election of Presidential electors. The various proposals to reform the 2resent system of electing the President are discussed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is essentially concerned with the proposals to reform the present Electoral College system. The first part of the report pertains to the introduction, background, and history of the Elector a1 College . The problem of the faithless elector is discussed. Also discussed are the pro- cedures for filling any vacancy if a presidential or vice presidential candi- date or a president-elect or a vice president-elect were to die.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College
    The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College Matthew M. Hoffmant CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................... .......... 936 11.RACIAL PoLmcs AND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM ............. A. The Constitutional Framework ....................... B. The Winner-Take-All System ........................ C. Race, PresidentialPolitics, and the Winner-Take-All Rule .... 1. Strom Thurmond and the "Dixiecrat" Campaign of 1948 . 2. The Free Elector Movement of 1960 ................ 3. The Wallace Campaign of 1968 and the Rise of the Republican South ........................... 957 4. Racial Politics and Present-Day Campaigns .......... 959 III. APPLICATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT TO THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM ............................. 962 A. ConstitutionalAuthority ........................... 965 B. Statutory Authority ............................... 974 IV. THE § 2 ANALYSIS ........................ ......... 978 A. Legal Standards ....................... ......... 979 1. Numerosity and GeographicalCompactness ......... 980 2. Political Cohesion .................. ......... 984 3. White Bloc Voting ................... ......... 988 4. The Totality of the Circumstances ........ ......... 995 B. Some Specific Examples ................. ......... 999 1. Alabama ......................... ........ 1000 2. California ........................ ........ 1002 t A.B., Harvard University, 1991; J.D., Yale Law School, 1995. I would like to thank a number of people whose comments and suggestions either directly or indirectly contributed
    [Show full text]