The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a state legislature could put conditions on the role of a presidential elector that would require that elector to vote as pledged. Despite a number of comments from pundits, this ruling has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the states can adopt the national popular vote compact. Under that compact, electors would be chosen by the states to vote in accordance with the results of the national popular vote rather than the vote within the state. Such result would overturn long standing precedent that the vote of each citizen of the state must be given equal weight as required by the 14th Amendment.
The electors are chosen by the individual states under the terms of the Constitution. They are not chosen on a national basis. That means that if electors are chosen by an election, the state's voters must have their votes valued equally. If a majority of voters in Texas pick the candidate of one party but the national popular vote goes the other way, forcing the Texas electors to vote in accordance with the national vote would deny the Texas voter equal protection; their votes would be discounted.
Such a result does not stand constitutional scrutiny.
The electors are chosen by the individual states under the terms of the Constitution. They are not chosen on a national basis. That means that if electors are chosen by an election, the state's voters must have their votes valued equally. If a majority of voters in Texas pick the candidate of one party but the national popular vote goes the other way, forcing the Texas electors to vote in accordance with the national vote would deny the Texas voter equal protection; their votes would be discounted.
Such a result does not stand constitutional scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment