Quote:
Originally Posted by molson
If the legislature of a state who signed up for this didn't like the results of a popular vote could they just repeal their version of the statute and swing a close election themselves?
There'd be legal challenges (and the Supreme Court could decide another election - yay), but but would the voters of a state be constitutionally harmed if the state changed course and awarded the state's electoral votes to whom the people actually voted for?
Edit: And I don't think other states would have standing to argue something like reliance, since its unconstitutional to enter into an agreement with other states absent congressional approval. All the states have to be on their own on this, even if there's a potential cumulative effect.
|
The states have the Constitutional right to dictate the "times, places, and manner" of elections, but I'd guess that Congress would hold that any changes have to affect the next proximate future election. Otherwise, for example, you could see an election where a gubernatorial candidate wins on the strength of early voting and the Legislature, controlled by the opposite party, votes to retroactively kill early voting to take those ballots off the table so Their Guy gets to be governor.
Or like what happened with the Maine dude who sued to kill ranked voting because he lost. He wanted to be declared the winner because he won a plurality of first-choice ballots. Maine voters voted knowing that their 2nd and 3rd place choices could impact the election, but that dude wanted the rules to change after he lost, and the courts said 'nope.'