Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

No faithless electors!

Dan Patrick has had enough of this nonsense.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Wednesday that a Texas Republican elector’s decision not to vote for Donald Trump may lead state legislators to pass a law requiring electors to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.

Christopher Suprun, an elector from Dallas, announced Monday that he will not cast his ballot for Trump, the president-elect, when Texas’ electors meet Dec. 19 in Austin. In a radio interview, Patrick called Suprun’s decision a “slap across the face” to the voters who helped Trump beat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by nine points in Texas, handing him the state’s 38 electoral votes.

“This is the type of action by an individual that will probably prompt us in the upcoming session to look at passing a law, as 29 other states have done … that says their electors must follow the will of the people,” said Patrick, who chaired Trump’s campaign in Texas. “We thought that people in Texas here who run for elector would keep their word.”

See here and here for the background. Whatever else one thinks about this, I would just note that Chris Suprun is acting in exactly the manner that the framers of the Constitution, like Alexander Hamilton, envisioned. If one argues for binding the electors to the popular vote of the state, then the Electoral College truly serves no purpose and should be abolished. That of course is not what Patrick is proposing, and in truth his plan is no more ridiculous than what we have now. I just wanted to be clear about that, since we are so often subjected to lectures by the likes of Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott about what the Constitution really means. It means what they say it means, except when they say it means something else.

Related Posts:

4 Comments

  1. Flypusher says:

    I really would like to see this go before SCOTUS. How would the “original intent” crowd rule?

    I’d rather see the EC go, but if we’re going to keep it, I agree that the Electors must to free to vote as they choose. It’s not like “faithless” electors have been that common. The reason we may have a record number this time is because Trump is so grossly unqualified and unfit for the office.

  2. Bill Daniels says:

    Agree with Flypusher, would like to see this issue get resolved by a SCOTUS that hopefully, will be populated by “original intent” minded jurists. I’d like to keep the EC, though. Those dead old white guys were pretty prescient about so much that has happened in this country.

    “A constitutional republic, if you can keep it” indeed.

    As to Patrick passing a law to prohibit “faithless electors,” even if such a law were passed, it wouldn’t bind our current crop of electors for this cycle, because it would be an ex post facto law if it were retroactively applied.

  3. […] Bill Daniels on No faithless electors! […]

  4. Nick says:

    This faithless elector has an association with Van Jones. He’s a liberal plant.