Supreme Court hands Democrats huge defeat over Electoral College. States can remove faithless Electors

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

I don't see how this decision helps the efforts to circumvent the electoral college. The decision specifically shot down the concept of electors voting against the will of the people IN THAT STATE.

The STATES can apportion the electors, and the electors have to comply

Then why did they appoint a representative? IF they did not intend for the representative to overturn the popular vote, then they would have simply said that it goes by the popular vote and bypassed the representative.

Read the opinion.
or read the synopsis on scotus blog.

The decision has nothing to do with apportioning. It leaves everything as it was. Maine and Neb may still apportion. each elector must vote as directed when he/she was selected, and if they don't, they can be fined under individual state laws.

Seriously, if you actually think the Sup Ct wants to decide elections, why would the "four liberal justices," including Kagan who wrote the lead opinion, vote that way?

It was a unanimous decision.

It says that states can force their electors to vote with the popular vote of THAT STATE, but specifically, Kagan said that the reasoning was that the electors are required to carry out the will of the people OF THAT STATE.

"the state instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens."