Mgl 208: Fill & Download for Free

Several incorrect answers have been given to this question:It has been traditional for 200+ years now that the electors chosen by a state should support the candidate who won most of that state’s popular vote. However that is a tradition that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.Article II of the Constitution gives the individual states governments final authority over the choice of electors. The only restriction is that no federal officers can be appointed an elector:“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.” (Article II, Sec 1, US Constitution)So, many state legislatures can send in a slate of Presidential Electors who support a candidate who lost the popular vote in that state.It is important to note though that as of this year, 29 states bind (through their own laws) all their electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. These states have long been considered to have the right to do so and that right was confirmed as recently as April of this year in the Supreme Court Decision: CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON in which the states in the below list can force electors to vote for the winning candidate. Keep in mind that a so called “Faithless Elector” who votes for someone other than the winner in one of these 29 states is violating his state’s law, not a federal law.Below is a list of states that bind their electors to vote for the statewide winner:Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)California (Election Code §6906)Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)Delaware (15 Del C §4303)District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))Hawaii (HRS §14-28)Maine (21-A MRS §805)Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)Michigan (MCL §168.47)Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)Montana (MCA §13-25-104)Nebraska (§32-714)Nevada (NRS §298.050)New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)Oregon (ORS §248.355)South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)Vermont (17 VSA §2732)Virginia (§24.2-203)Washington (RCW §29.71.020)Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)The remaining twenty-one state legislatures not listed above can choose anyone they please as an electors and the electors the states not on the above list can, in turn, vote for anyone they please.If you are a voter in a state not on the above list, your state legislators are constitutionally free to completely disregard your vote and the votes of everyone else in your state, and choose a slate of electors pledged to any living person who’s not a federal official. They could, if they wanted to, choose the present leader of the Ku Klux Klan, or Rue Paul, or Rachael Maddow, or Sean Hannity, for that matter.For example, as recently as 2000, the legislature of Florida was preparing a slate of Republican pledged electors to vote for Bush no matter how the recount that year turned out. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) beat them to the punch. Florida is not on the above list.Even this year the Republican state legislature in Pennsylvania has formed a joint committee to explore the possibility of appointing a slate of presidential electors of their own choosing should they be uncomfortable with the popular vote. Pennsylvania too is not on the above list.As for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that was a landmark piece of legislation long overdue, however it makes no mention of the Electoral College.1965 Voting Rights Act, Specific Prohibitions:“The act contains several specific prohibitions on conduct that may interfere with a person's ability to cast an effective vote. One of these prohibitions is prescribed in Section 201, which prohibits any jurisdiction from requiring a person to comply with any "test or device" to register to vote or cast a ballot. The term "test or device" is defined as literacy tests, educational or knowledge requirements, proof of good moral character, and requirements that a person be vouched for when voting.Several further protections for voters are contained in Section 11. Section 11(a) prohibits any person acting under color of law from refusing or failing to allow a qualified person to vote or to count a qualified voter's ballot. Similarly, Section 11(b) prohibits any person from intimidating, harassing, or coercing another person for voting or attempting to vote.Finally, under Section 208, a jurisdiction may not prevent anyone who is English-illiterate or has a disability from being accompanied into the ballot box by an assistant of the person's choice. The only exceptions are that the assistant may not be an agent of the person's employer or union.’You’ll notice that nowhere in the above three paragraphs the Electoral College is not even mentioned.The only possible way the Electoral College could be found nationally unconstitutional is if the Supreme Court ruled that another amendment to the Constitution took precedence, such as the XIV Amendment (equal protection before the law). The Supreme Court has never so ruled in any case involving the Electoral College.