IN A PERFECT world, the nation’s top court wouldn’t have to rule on pledged electors. Those electors would fulfill their promises, and cast Electoral College ballots for the person the voters back home chose. Until perfection is attained, however, court rulings will have to do.
It’s a rarity in modern America that the United States Supreme Court rules on a political matter—and the outcome is unanimous. Even more rare, the losing side salutes sharply, and acknowledges the overall good of the outcome. The news columns keep getting stranger in 2020.
Monday’s ruling came after a couple of states—Colorado in the west, Washington even more west—took action against so-called “faithless” electors. Those states sought to either fine or replace electors who decided to go on their own in the electoral process.
During the Trump-Clinton 2016 count, a couple of electors tried to vote for Colin Powell and John Kasich. Lower courts disagreed about whether the Constitution allowed states to control these electors. But common sense, and now the courts, have said states certainly can.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, and for voters: “The state instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a nation that here, We the People rule.”
The best news is that the matter is now settled, well before the November election. And the electoral college matters. Twice since the 2000 election the winner of the presidency won the electoral college but not the popular vote. This country doesn’t need a train wreck come some winter evening when two or three people decide to cause chaos.
How important is the ruling? The law professor representing the other side, Lawrence Lessig, put out a statement calling it progress:
“When we launched these cases, we did it because regardless of the outcome, it was critical to resolve this question before it created a constitutional crisis. Obviously, we don’t believe the court has interpreted the Constitution correctly. But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective—this uncertainty has been removed. That is progress.”
It certainly is. So is the good professor’s statement, which shows good sportsmanship.
Now then, get ready for the silly season, Mr. and Mrs. America. The serious stuff has been handled.