Hacker News Reader

Exactly. This is how it has basically been for the past 230 years. The ruling in no way "kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents".

A few states recently enacted an unconstitutional law to attempt to void the faithless electors vote, and all this ruling does is clarify that those state laws were indeed unconstitutional.

View on HN

I agree that the 12th amendment doesn't allow states to void the faithless elector's vote, but it would be constitutionally permissible for them to criminalize faithless voting, would it not?

> it would be constitutionally permissible for them to criminalize faithless voting, would it not?

No, according to the court's opinion ("slip opinion"), starting at p.73 of the PDF [0]. I've posted excerpts in a top-level comment.

[0] https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1173.pdf

Almost. If this were a Supreme Court decision, I would agree with you. But it's "only" the 10th Circuit. It doesn't apply to most of the country unless the Supreme Court agrees or unless and until the other districts adopt the same reasoning when such a case comes before them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com