As 2020 presidential contest looms, U.S. Supreme Court mulls power of
'electors'
Send a link to a friend
[May 11, 2020]
By Andrew Chung
(Reuters) - Bret Chiafalo had his bags
packed in the weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election. If
somehow his gambit worked and Donald Trump were blocked from officially
being declared the winner, the information technology specialist from
Washington state figured all hell might break loose.
Chiafalo, 41, served in the role of presidential elector - an individual
who plays a pivotal role in the complicated Electoral College process
set out in the U.S. Constitution to determine the winner of presidential
elections. Chiafalo was one of 538 electors who cast their votes in the
aftermath of the November election, ultimately designating the
Republican Trump as the winner over his Democratic rival Hillary
Clinton.
In most states, electors - typically party loyalists - must pledge to
vote for their party's candidate if that person wins state's popular
vote. Chiafalo, desperate to thwart Trump, had other intentions and
voted for someone else.
Trump still won in the Electoral College, with the results certified by
Congress in January 2017, and was sworn in as president later that
month.
Chiafalo is now at the heart of one of two closely watched cases being
argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that will determine whether
electors have the constitutional right to exercise independence and defy
the will of the voters - a question touching upon the integrity of
American democracy.
Chiafalo, a Democratic elector from the city of Everett north of
Seattle, thought Trump posed a "clear and present danger" to the
presidency. So he and others hatched a plan: Convince enough Republican
electors from various states to cast their ballots for a moderate
Republican and deprive Trump of an Electoral College majority.
The justices must decide if states can penalize so-called "faithless"
electors like Chiafalo who disregard their pledges with actions such as
monetary fines or removal from the role. Thirty-two states and the
District of Columbia have laws intended to control how electors vote.
Only a handful enforce them with penalties.
In 2016, the stakes for Chiafalo and the other faithless electors were
high. When word of their plans surfaced, Chiafalo said, he received
death threats. He said he packed his bags and planned to flee to
Denmark, where he had a place to stay if things turned ugly.
"They (said) this would start a civil war, that I'd be the first one on
the pike, sexual assault threats against my family," Chiafalo said in an
interview. "At the end of the day I believed I was doing the right thing
for us and standing up for the Constitution."
Seeking to persuade Republican electors to reject Trump, Chiafalo
himself voted for former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a
moderate Republican, instead of Clinton, who won Washington state's
popular vote.
The second case involves Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector in Colorado
who voted for moderate Republican former Ohio Governor John Kasich
instead of Clinton, who won the state's popular vote.
But only 10 electors nationwide broke their pledges and Trump defeated
Clinton 304-227 in the Electoral College. Trump lost the nationwide
popular vote by about 3 million votes but had won a sufficient
combination of individual states to earn a victory.
Baca, a high school teacher now living in Las Vegas, blamed the scheme's
failure on fear of potential violence and other unknowns if their plan
succeeded.
"I feel that was the biggest reason more influential electors and
political elites did not join this effort," Baca, 28, said in an
interview.
[to top of second column]
|
A general view of the United States Supreme Court in Washington,
U.S., May 3, 2020. Picture taken May 3, 2020. REUTERS/Will Dunham
Chiafalo was fined $1,000 by Washington state. Baca's vote was
canceled by Colorado officials. In the two cases, Chiafalo, Baca and
two other faithless electors, as well as two others who cast their
votes as pledged, argue that by penalizing electors states violate
their rights under the Constitution's Article II and its 12th
Amendment, which delineate the Electoral College process.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said giving electors
unfettered discretion poses risks for democracy.
"These 538 individuals are empowered to implement the people's will,
not to thwart it," Ferguson said in court papers.
Ferguson warned about states being powerless to stop electors who
might offer their vote to the highest bidder or are blackmailed by a
foreign power.
Trump is seeking re-election on Nov. 3 against presumptive
Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Trump's administration took no
position in the two Supreme Court cases.
PENALIZED ELECTORS
The 2016 election marked the first time that states penalized
electors for disregarding the will of the voters, said Lawrence
Lessig, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs.
The issue of elector discretion must be resolved now because
America's changing demographics means that contests at the state
level will become even closer and "the chance that it's going to
matter is going up," Lessig said.
A swing of 10 electors - the number of faithless electors in 2016 -
would have changed the outcome of five of the 58 prior U.S.
presidential elections.
The number of electors allotted to each state is the sum of its two
U.S. senators and its number of House of Representatives members,
which is based on population size. The District of Columbia, which
is not a state, has three electors.
All states, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, have
winner-takes-all systems awarding all electors to the candidate who
wins the state's popular vote.
A lower court upheld Washington state's fine against Chiafalo and
two other faithless electors. Another court concluded that
Colorado's action against Baca violated his constitutional rights.
Paul Smith, vice president of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center
voting-rights advocacy group, emphasized the dangers of faithless
electors.
"An elector could legally accept contributions worth millions of
dollars in connection with their official duties," Smith said, "and
the public would never know."
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |