Electors who are seeking to avoid casting their votes as promised may be facing legal hurdles as they attempt to keep President-elect Donald Trump out of the White House.
Julian Assange associate: It was a leak, not a hack and the DNC insider is NOT Russian
Colorado electors failed at their attempt to have their votes unbound when a federal judge on Monday denied their motion to suspend the state’s law.
Granting the motion to allow electors to vote against the popular vote would “undermine” the electoral process, according to Judge Wiley Daniel, KMGH TV reported. Wiley advised Robert Nemanich, of Colorado Springs, and Polly Baca, a former state senator from Denver, that if they were unhappy with the election, they should try to change the state law. He also called the lawsuit a “political stunt.”
BREAKING: Fed judge in Colorado DENIES #faithlesselectors request for prelim injunction to unbind their votes. #9news #copolitics
— Brandon Rittiman (@BrandonRittiman) December 12, 2016
CO electors fail in attempt to suspend law requiring them to vote for state winner, major blow to longshot try to block Trump presidency.
— Nick Riccardi (@NickRiccardi) December 12, 2016
The plaintiffs, part of a total of nine Democratic electors from Colorado, argued that the state law requiring them to vote for the winner of Colorado’s popular vote violates the U.S. Constitution, as well as the First, Twelfth and Fourteenth amendments. In a last-ditch effort to keep Trump out of the White House, the electors do not want to cast their vote for Hillary Clinton who won Colorado’s Electoral College votes.
Wisconsin recount ends with more embarrassment for Hillary
“Unfortunately two faithless electors – prior to even taking office – have arrogantly thumbed their noses at Colorado’s voters and have announced their intent to violate Colorado law,” Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams said in a statement, according to KMGH.
@BrandonRittiman As it should be. I’ve never seen so much whining by a bunch of spoiled, entitled whiners. #triedtobesympathtic #overitnow
— Chris Jones (@Jonesdawg63) December 13, 2016
The Colorado plaintiffs could face misdemeanor charges resulting in a fine or jail time but, according to their attorneys, they are willing to face the consequences.
A Texas elector who announced that he would be voting against the nominee of the party that elected him to the electoral college could also face legal consequences.
The “faithless elector,” Christoper Suprun, could face criminal prosecution unless, according to Texas statutes, the state decides to declare him ineligible and replaces him.
In an op-ed piece in The New York Times, the Republican elector spelled out why he would not be voting for Trump and appeared to invite others to follow his lead.
I can not, nor will I, cast my ballot for Donald Trump.
My @nytimes @nytopinion: https://t.co/9cLOtfUxIF #ElectoralCollege
— (((Chris Suprun))) (@TheChrisSuprun) December 6, 2016
The same strategy seemed to be behind electors in Washington State who wished to disregard the popular vote, risking fines up to $1,000 each. A hearing is set for Wednesday in a suit by two electors challenging the state law.
“I feel that it is my duty to cast my vote against Trump,” elector Levi Guerra told the Seattle Times. “Instead, I must vote for the person who I believe will be best for my constituents and who has the greatest chance for unifying our country.”
The electors are hoping to cast their votes for a Republican “compromise candidate,” the Times reported.
State Attorney General Bob Ferguson responded to the suit by the “faithless electors,” arguing that the case lacked legal merit and “no court, anywhere, has adopted Plaintiffs’ argument that the Constitution requires allowing electors to ignore the will of their state’s voters.”
AGO files response in “faithless electors” court action https://t.co/qVOvn2n5OK
— WA Attorney General (@AGOWA) December 13, 2016
“Plaintiffs are simply wrong to claim that Wash. law prevents them from casting their electoral ballots in any particular way,” @AGOWA
— Natalie Brand (@NatalieBrandK5) December 13, 2016
“2nd, plaintiffs are incorrect to suggest that they have a constitutional right to reject the view of state’s voters,” continues response
— Natalie Brand (@NatalieBrandK5) December 13, 2016
It seems, even though some die-hard electors are trying to challenge the system, laws continue to be on the side of respecting the electoral process.
Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
Originally from New York, Powers graduated from New York University and eventually made her way to sunny South Florida where she has been writing for the BizPacReview team since 2015.
- ‘Do not lose your life over a f-ing car!’ Brazen thieves tell homeowners to stay inside as they swipe Corvette - April 18, 2024
- Sworn in jurist in Trump hush money trial already dismissed as selection becomes growing nightmare - April 18, 2024
- INSIDER: ‘Speaks volumes!’ Biden ignored when he visits Pennsylvania gas station, stark contrast from Trump - April 18, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
