Future presidential elections: the U.S. Supreme court will decide the fate of the voting process

The U.S. Supreme court will decide whether or not the 538 members of the electoral College to vote for the winners in their respective States. About it writes USA Today.

Будущее президентских выборов: Верховный суд США решит судьбу процесса голосования

Photo: Depositphotos

The Supreme court of Washington ruled to impose fines of $1,000 against three of the electors who voted in December 2016, Colin Powell, not Hillary Clinton, who won in the state.

Ever uncertain of the tendency of some members of the electoral College did not decide the election results, so the effect of the decisions of the Supreme court may be just mathematical. But the race 2020 between President Donald trump and his possible opponent-a Democrat might be risky for such a solution.

“The court should resolve this conflict now, before it occurs in the context of elections”, — said the Professor at Harvard law school Lawrence Lessig on behalf of three voters in Washington state. He noted that in 2016 10 voters either went against the system, or tried to do it that enough to change the results of the presidential elections.

“As the demographics of the United States shows that the number of votes for each candidate will be about the same, there is a high probability that such fluctuations may force the court to decide the question of freedom of elections,” warned Lessig.

In accordance with the Constitution, each state appoints electors to vote, distributed by popular vote. Twenty-nine States and the district of Columbia require that electors vote for the candidate of his party.

The Supreme court of Washington held that the state has the right to appoint the first ever fines for so-called unfaithful electors.

“Elector operates under the laws of the state, and the right of the First amendment is not violated when the state imposes a fine for the violation by the elector of the law,” the court ruled.

The appellate court of the 10th County created another precedent in the case. “States cannot interfere with the electors to exercise discretion when voting for President and Vice-President,” the court ruled.

The split between the two courts, as well as the real prospect that the electors can decide who will win the elections probably led the judges to action.

Even the voters of Colorado the voice for Kasich was upheld, agreed that the Supreme court should intervene. Only Washington has urged judges not to interfere.

To provide electors with such independence, the solicitor General of the state of Noah Purcell wrote to the judges: “This would mean that only 538 Americans — members of the electoral College have the right to vote and can decide who should be President of the United States.”