Quantcast
Skip to main content



This site works best in IE9 and up and in other modern web browsers

Federal Judge Issues Stern Warning to Faithless Electors Wanting to Undermine Election!

cnn lawsuit

Ever since President-elect Donald Trump soundly defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, several electors in the Electoral College have threatened to vote against the will of the people in their state to against both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

One group of electors who are supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton experienced a major setback in court and one judge has reminded them that they can be replaced.

From The Daily Caller:

The so-called “Hamilton electors” are former supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and the group hopes to undermine the public’s trust in the Electoral College system by proving that electors are able to vote any way they choose, and that there is no legal remedy for the problem.

The reality is much different. The head electors of the movement filed a motion to gain the ability to vote for any other candidate other than Clinton, a motion that was denied by the Colorado court system Monday. Denver, Col. District Court Judge Elizabeth Starrs supports state protocols for removing electors if they vote for someone other than who they are required to elect Dec. 19, according to a decision Wednesday.

“If you take an oath of office and then immediately violate it, that should have consequences,” Williams told Denverite.

The judge rejected the electors’ argument, calling them “arrogant’ who have “personal desires over the entire will of the people of Colorado. And in doing so, they seek to violate Colorado law and their own pledges.”

Unsurprisingly, this group of faithless electors has earned the support among Democrats, and even a Republican, Texas elector Chris Suprun. Even so, Democrats would need at least 37 electors to switch their votes and deny President-elect Trump the presidency, a feat that is nearly impossible to overcome.

Trump currently has 306 electoral votes, 36 more than than the constitutionally required 270 needed to assume the presidency. Even if by some miracle 37 electors refused to vote for Trump, the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans, would then vote for the next president, which certainly would not be Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Do you believe that electors who refuse to vote for the candidate their state chose in the 2016 presidential election should be replaced? Are these “faithless electors” just a nuisance or are they undermining American democracy? Share your thoughts below! 

Advertisement