In recent years, the Electoral College has been under attack. A total of 16 jurisdictions have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which would ultimately render the Electoral College useless. Signatories have pledged to cast their electoral votes for whoever wins the national popular vote once the Compact has been signed by enough states to reach 270 electoral votes. But what would actually happen if the Electoral College was abolished? Safeguard: An Electoral College Story takes a look at that question and explains the history behind the institution.

This morning, the Supreme Court dropped its much-anticipated opinion on faithless electors in Chiafalo v. Washington, which was consolidated with Colorado Department of State v. Baca.  Ruling unanimously, the Court held that a state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee – and the state voters’ choice – for president in the Electoral College.

For many, the Court’s opinion puts to rest the argument that electors have the freedom to depart from the will of the voters to instead cast their vote as they please; however, the Court’s decision leaves open two methods by which electors can remain faithless – (1) when the state has no law in place to compel faithfulness, and (2) when the penalty is a monetary fine that the elector can pay in exchange for his unfaithfulness.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument (virtually) in two "faithless electors" cases, Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca.  Presidential electors who wished to vote in 2016 for persons other than Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in both states, were sanctioned by the states – a $1,000 fine for the Washington electors and removal for the Colorado electors.  These cases present interesting constitutional, jurisdictional, and legal policy questions, and the justices seemed to consider them close cases during oral argument.  Part I featured some highlights from arguments presented to the Court by amici, and this post will focus on oral argument and the analysis of the case.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument (virtually) in two "faithless electors" cases, Chiafalo v. Washington and  Colorado Department of State v. Baca.  Presidential electors who wished to vote in 2016 for persons other than Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in both states, were sanctioned by the states, with a $1,000 fine for the Washington electors and removal for the Colorado electors.  These cases present interesting constitutional, jurisdictional, and legal policy questions, and the justices seemed to consider them close cases during oral argument.  Here are some highlights from arguments presented to the Court by amici, and part II will focus on oral argument and analysis of the case.

The Supreme Court today announced that it would hear arguments about the “faithless elector cases.”  As SCOTUS blog writes:

In Chiafolo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the justices will consider the constitutionality of “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way state law directs. The petitioner in the Washington case, Peter Chiafolo, was elected as a presidential elector when Hillary Clinton won that state’s popular vote in 2016 but voted for Colin Powell instead, which led to a $1,000 fine for violating a state law that required him to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won the majority of the popular votes. The respondent in the Colorado case, Micheal Baca, was removed as an elector after he attempted to vote for John Kasich, even though Clinton won the popular vote in Colorado as well. Chiafolo told the justices that the question has real-world importance in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election: In 2016, he noted, “ten of the 538 presidential electors either cast presidential votes other than the nominees of their party” or tried to do so but were replaced. A similar swing would “have changed the results in five of fifty-eight prior elections,” he added.

On the Presidential Primary debate stage and in general, Democrats and their liberal base have gone so far left that they are regularly getting called out by liberal-icon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  This is because, while Justice Ginsburg is still very liberal and no friend of moderates or conservatives, she is looking at least rational and realistic.  Let’s run through a few issues and items.

The future of the Electoral College has become an increasingly important topic as the 2020 presidential election approaches. Democratic candidates Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all called for the Electoral College to be abolished. What the candidates fail to tell their supporters is that abolishing the Electoral College is a dangerous prospect that would hurt the voice of smaller states in presidential elections.

As desperate Democrats seek a redo of the 2016 election, they are dedicating time, energy, and electioneering in key states across the Nation. From adding unverified names through Mandatory Voter Registration to undermining confirmed identification at the polls, Liberal activists are doing everything to ensure any upcoming red-wave doesn’t match the success of 2016. Most recently, a new proposal has been gaining traction and seeks to undermine the American voter: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).