10th Circuit Court rules in support of ‘faithless electors’
The US 10th Circuit Court announced a ruling on Tuesday that protects electors, the ultimate authority on the allocation of votes in the US presidential elections, who choose to vote against the results of the popular vote in their states.
The court ruling holds that electors cannot be compelled to vote in a certain way once selected, cannot be recalled after selection, and cannot be punished for voting in a given way.
As a circuit court decision, the ruling has immediate effect in the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
The concept of the faithless elector stems from the US electoral system, in which, while votes are tallied across each state, the actual allocation of those votes comes down to appointed electors, numbering equal to the state’s combined Congressional seats.
Electors are nominated by the major political parties and selected according to the popular vote; if the popular vote in a state were to favor the Democratic candidate for president, the Democratic Party’s elector would be appointed, with the expectation that they would then convey the state’s voting intention according to their party.
This system was established at the United States’ founding, in a time when travel and communication between states were arduous. Electors kept lines of contact with the capitol, allowing a state’s voting intention to be registered without the difficulties of conveying all ballot information across the country.
Theoretically, electors were also to serve as a bulwark against misinformation, being more in touch with the national climate and thus able to counteract regional demagogues who might sway isolated communities.
As a result of this background, nothing in federal law or in the Constitution prevents electors from voting in a different manner than the popular vote in their state would decree, meaning that electors could theoretically disregard the popular vote entirely and decide a presidential election as individuals.
Restrictions against these potential ‘faithless’ electors have been implemented as law at the state level as well as by way of pledges within political parties. The 10th Circuit Court decision would therefore nullify the ability of the states to take measures against faithless electors.
In the case that went before the circuit court, Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector in Colorado during the 2016 election, cast his ballot for Republican John Kasich instead of for Hillary Clinton. The secretary of state removed Baca from his position and his vote was discarded and replaced.
Now, the actions against Baca have been ruled unconstitutional, and the issue will be escalated to the Supreme Court for a final decision prior to the 2020 election.
