Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mfcorey1

(11,059 posts)
Tue Dec 13, 2016, 04:30 AM Dec 2016

Damn! Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner

DENVER — A federal judge dealt a severe setback Monday to a longshot plan to deny Donald Trump the presidency through the Electoral College, refusing to suspend a Colorado law requiring the state's nine electors to vote for the presidential candidate who won the state in November.

U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel denied a request by two Colorado electors who contended that the law binding their vote to Colorado vote winner Hillary Clinton violated their First Amendment rights and the intents of the Constitution's framers. The electors had sought the right to vote for someone other than Clinton in order to unite behind a consensus Republican other than Trump when the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19.

Daniel found that suspending the Colorado requirement would have harmed the state's voters and jeopardized a peaceful presidential transition. "Part of me thinks this is really a political stunt to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president," said Daniel, who was nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1995.

If the Colorado electors had been successful, it could have signaled that similar laws in more than two dozen other states could also be overturned, freeing a large number of electors to defect from Trump. Jason Wesoky, who represents the two electors, said he may seek an emergency appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals — the only chance his clients would have of blocking the Colorado law before they have to cast their votes.

Should the Colorado electors be freed, some of them hoped to persuade enough of their counterparts elsewhere to unite behind a Republican alternative like Mitt Romney. So far only one Republican elector has announced he won't vote for Trump. The president-elect won 306 electors last month to Clinton's 232.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-says-electors-must-vote-for-statewide-winner/ar-AAlu2t5?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Damn! Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner (Original Post) mfcorey1 Dec 2016 OP
The fine is very light even if one were to be found "guilty" and the conviction stevenleser Dec 2016 #1
The concept of the Electoral College is just a huge clusterfuck. DetlefK Dec 2016 #2
Not Constitutional Chasstev365 Dec 2016 #3
Yes, the goal is to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president. tanyev Dec 2016 #4
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
1. The fine is very light even if one were to be found "guilty" and the conviction
Tue Dec 13, 2016, 04:35 AM
Dec 2016

Upheld and there is no jail time. I don't think it's a criminal conviction but a civil fine.

tanyev

(44,464 posts)
4. Yes, the goal is to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
Tue Dec 13, 2016, 08:06 AM
Dec 2016

Electors wanting to do their constitutional duty is a political stunt?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Damn! Judge says elector...