(Washington) The United States Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the electors responsible for appointing the President in the context of indirect elections could be penalized if they were freed from the choice of citizens.
Published on July 6 2020 at 12 h 13
France Media Agency
Four months before the next presidential election, the highest court in the United States has unanimously corrected its nine judges for an “anomaly” likely to affect the outcome of the election.
A State which obliges its voters to respect the vote of millions of citizens “acts in accordance with the Constitution and with the confidence of a Nation where” We, the people “govern”, they decided by referring in the preamble to the Constitution.
The file related to one of the complexities of the American electoral system: the election of the president by a college of great voters designated by each state on the basis of the vote of the citizens.
In 48 of the 50 States, the candidate came first in the ballot boxes all the votes of the great voters are won, and some states have adopted mechanisms to compel them to respect the popular vote.
Despite everything, some, nicknamed the “big disloyal voters”, get rid of it. Between 1796 at 2016, there was 180 Votes contrary to expectations during presidential elections.
In 2016, five major voters on 538 refused to vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton even though 'She won the majority of the votes in their state, and two turned away from the Republican Donald Trump.
Some were then punished by the states of Colorado and Washington and two had contested their sanction – a fine of 1000 dollars for one, a withdrawal functions of great voter for the other – in the name of their “freedom to vote”.
The courts were divided on the question but the Supreme Court decided without ambiguity: “the text of the Constitution and the history of our Nation authorize a State to oblige its large voters to respect the candidate of the party and the choice of voters for the presidency ”.
Even if these defections never had a direct impact on the outcome of the polls, several magistrates of the High Court were worried during the hearing of the risk of “chaos” if the big disloyal voters did topple an election.
“If a popular vote gives a very short victory to a candidate, there could be concerted campaigns to change the result by influencing certain big voters”, had notably underlined the conservative judge Samuel Alito.
