Judges fear "chaos" if states cannot tie voter votes

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices invoked fear of corruption and chaos on Wednesday to suggest that they think states can demand presidential voters to support the winner of their state's popular vote in college electoral.

The judges heard arguments over an unusual voting issue that could have major consequences for the 2020 presidential election in an era of intense political polarization.

A central theme of the questions was whether states can replace electors who choose to vote for someone other than the winner of the state's popular vote. If they cannot, "it would lead to chaos," said judge Samuel Alito, "where the popular vote is closed and changing only a few votes would change the outcome."

Justice Clarence Thomas asked: "Can a state eliminate someone, for example, who openly demands payment for their vote?"

Wednesday was the last day of oral argument

In May, with live audio, and asked if presidential voters are obligated to support popular vote winners in their states or if they can choose someone else. Disputes were scheduled to take place in the courtroom in April, but were postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

So-called unfaithful voters They weren't critical of the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race with a very slim margin.

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia require presidential voters to vote for the winner of the popular vote, and voters almost always do so anyway. Under the Constitution, the country indirectly elects the president and voters elect those who actually voted for the polling station. 270 votes are required to win.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that people become voters by promising to support a candidate. What worried him, said Ginsburg, was: "I made a promise to do something, but that promise cannot be kept."

The problem stems from lawsuits by three Hillary Clinton voters in Washington State and one in Colorado who refused to vote for her despite his popular vote in both states. In doing so, they hoped to persuade enough voters in the states won by Donald Trump to choose someone else and deny Trump the presidency.

The Denver Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that voters can vote as they please, rejecting arguments that they must choose the winner of the popular vote. In Washington, the state’s Supreme Court confirmed a $ 1,000 fine against the three voters and dismissed their claims.

In total, there were 10 unfaithful voters in 2016, including a fourth in Washington, a Democratic voter in Hawaii and two Republican voters in Texas. In addition, Democratic voters who said they would not vote for Clinton were replaced in Maine and Minnesota.

Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School, who supported sweeping voting, redistribution and campaign finance reforms, represented Washington voters on the Supreme Court. Lessig briefly researched the 2016 Democratic nomination and asked presidential voters to support Clinton because he won the national popular vote four years ago.

Lessig warned that constrained voters could open the door to other restrictions, including denying electoral votes to candidates who do not travel to their states or who do not issue their tax returns.

The Campaign Legal Center, which also supports campaign finance and redistribution reforms, has warned in a legal case that a Superior Court ruling that voters are free agents creates the "possibility that presidential campaigns and outside groups can direct large sums of money to crucial or hesitant voters. "

The closest margin for the Electoral College in recent years was in 2000, when Republican George W. Bush received 271 votes to 266 by Democrat Al Gore. A voter in Washington, D.C., left his ballot blank.

The Supreme Court played a decisive role in this election, ending the count in Florida, where Bush had a margin of 537 votes out of the 6 million votes cast.

Judges have scheduled separate arguments in the Washington and Colorado cases after Judge Sonia Sotomayor left the Colorado case late because she knew one of the plaintiffs.