The Supreme Court just dealt a major blow to Democrat election plans in a Monday decision.
With a unanimous consensus, the high court decided on Monday that states can leave rules in place requiring presidential electors to back the state’s popular vote winner in the general election.
Many Democrats have voiced a desire to entirely do away with the electoral college — a victim of the system, Hillary Clinton, is one of them — but the Supreme Court just blocked the first step towards that goal.
Breitbart reported in May:
Chiafalo v. Washington … [is] a case involving three presidential electors in the State of Washington who were fined $1,000 after casting their Electoral College votes for Colin Powell rather than Hillary Clinton.
The electors challenged their fine and were represented by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig — who ran for president himself in 2016, and tried to recruit electors to defect rather than voting for Donald Trump after the 2016 vote.
Lessig agreed that the states can ask electors to pledge to vote for a certain candidate, but cannot fine them for doing so, arguing that presidential elections are a federal function.
The arguments on both sides took an originalist form, as the two sides argued about the original intent of the Framers in setting up the Electoral College.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan cited the 2nd and 12th amendments in her decision that states may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with Kagan’s conclusion but wrote that his opinion was based in the 10th amendment, which states that all powers and rights not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states — including the power to control electors.