Home Opinion A Court Ruling Might Change How We Pick Our President In Future...

A Court Ruling Might Change How We Pick Our President In Future Elections


New Mexico is the latest state to sign into law legislation that would give the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide.

New Mexico now joins 13 other states and the District of Columbia as part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

The 13 states which have already agreed to the compact are: Colorado, Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, and California— have passed legislation in their respective statehouses agreeing to favor the popular vote in presidential elections.

The Dems want to change the way we pick our President we all know that.

But one court ruling could change the way we elect our President in future elections.

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.

“This issue could be a ticking time bomb in our divided politics. It’s not hard to imagine how a single faithless elector, voting differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential election,” said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.

The Colorado Sun reported:

A three-judge panel on the federal appellate court ruled 2-1 against the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office in a case dating back to the 2016 presidential election, when three of the state’s nine presidential electors — the state’s Electoral College voice — tried to vote for candidates other than Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won handily in the state. 

Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams ordered them to cast their votes for Clinton or be replaced. One of the electors, Micheal Baca, refused and tried to back Ohio’s then-Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, as part of a national attempt by electors to block Donald Trump’s presidency. 

Baca, termed a “faithless elector,” was removed and replaced with another elector who voted for Clinton. The two other electors who also wanted to vote for Kasich — Polly Baca (unrelated to Micheal) and Robert Nemanich — opted to vote for Clinton instead of being replaced.

What do you think about this?