Bitter Dem’s movement to upend Electoral College gains steam, lawsuits begin


One of the annoyances of presidential elections is that every four years, we have one side calling for the abolition of the electoral college.

In 2012, it was Republicans claiming Mitt Romney was hindered in his bid against Barack Obama.

Now, Democrats are the ones who can’t shake off the feeling that the Electoral College gave Donald Trump an unfair advantage over Hillary Clinton–even though the electoral vote count in blue vs. red states gives the Democrat candidate an automatic 26-point advantage over the Republican.

Because the Electoral College is established in the Constitution, the only way to get rid of it is by passing an Amendment. Democrats know that’s never going to happen, so they’re doing what they always do when they can’t pass the legislation they want–turning to the courts.

An organization called Equal Citizens is leading the charge to eliminate the “winner-take-all” allotment of state electoral votes by funding lawsuits around the country, as reported by the Washington Times.

Equal Citizens is headed by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig. This month, the organization launched a project aimed at getting states to distribute their electoral votes proportionally. In just the last week, Equal Citizens has raised $65,000–and they already have at least one lawsuit in the works.

The group is backing Michael Baca, a 2016 Democratic elector from Colorado who participated in a nation-wide effort to deprive Donald Trump of electoral votes. Per his state’s laws, Baca was removed as an elector when he cast his vote for Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Baca is suing Secretary of State Wayne Williams for enforcing the faithless elector law, claiming Mr. Williams “threatened and intimidated” Baca and his two accomplices.

By “intimidated,” Baca means Williams said he would replace them and refer them to the prosecutor’s office for perjury charges if they failed to honor their oath to cast their electoral votes for Hillary Clinton.

In other words, Baca and his associates claim they were “intimidated” because an official of the state executive branch promised to execute state law.

Ironically, Donald Trump would still have won the election even if proportional allocation of electoral votes had been in place for 2016.

The election would have gone to Trump if electoral votes were assigned base on congressional district and under the “proportion popular” method, under which the winner gets 2 of the state’s electoral votes and the rest go based on the percentage of the vote.

“Popular vote by state” would mean that each state’s electoral votes would be given proportionally. Under that plan, Trump would have won only a pluarity–not 270. So the race would have gone to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Time will tell how far this latest effort goes. Meanwhile, conservatives are letting Democrats know why it’s a bad idea.

Related Posts