Washington State Will Enforce Penalties Against 4 'Faithless' Clinton Electors

[DonViejo]

Source: LawNewz

by Rachel Stockman 6:39 pm, December 19th, 2016

The Washington States Secretary of States Office confirmed to LawNewz.com that they plan to pursue civil penalties against the four Electors who defected from the States popular vote, and opted not to vote for Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. 3 electors voted for Colin Powell, and a fourth elector cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a member of the Sioux Nation and an activist against the pipeline. The remaining 8 Electors voted for Clinton.

We will be enforcing the law. We are working with the Attorney General on this, we have never had to impose this law before, David Ammons, the communications director for the Secretary of States Office, told LawNewz.com.

According Washingtons law, ([link:http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/dispo.aspx?cite29.71.020RCW 29.71.020)/RCW 29A.56.340], a faithless elector who votes for a person or persons not nominated by the party of which he or she is an elector is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

It will not be an honorific one dollar, it will be in the spirit of the statute which seems to point to $1,000, but we are still working out the exact amount (of the penalty), Ammons said.

-snip-



Read more: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/washington-state-will-enforce-law-against-4-faithless-clinton-electors/

[Johnathan146]

1. Michael moore promised to pay all fines. Send him the bill.

[Thor_MN]

4. I don't think he promised to pay electors that did what they did.

He promised to pay electors that didn't vote for the Orange Idiot.

Welcome to DU.

[brooklynite]

57. His exact quote:

if you do vote your conscience and you are punished for it, I will personally step up pay your fine which is my legal right to do.

[Thor_MN]

59. His full quote.

"Some states have made it 'illegal' for you to vote any other way than for Trump. If you don't vote for him, your state will fine you ... So here's my offer to you: I obviously can't and won't give you money to vote tomorrow, but if you do vote your conscience and you are punished for it, I will personally step up pay your fine which is my legal right to do."

You couldn't even bother to capitalize the I in if to try try to hide your out of context quotation? Fail.

[Hortensis]

81. Responsible post, thanks.

[Thor_MN]

83. I just realized that I was irresponsible... Pay fines for electors that didn't vote for Trump.

Not pay electors.

The way some people seem to want to twist things, I thought I should get that corrected... Too late to edit but at least it's here somewhere.

[Hortensis]

84. Yes. Didn't misunderstand what you meant to say.

Full context is a GOOD thing for us, a very bad thing for the enemies out to destroy liberalism.

[Thor_MN]

85. I just used your post as a place to hang a better description.

I was pretty sure I knew what you meant, but then I reread what I posted and realized that I had spoken in an unclear manner.

[kudzu22]

65. Well, they didn't vote for Trump

So pay up, Mike!

[Thor_MN]

67. His letter was to GOP electors.

Nice tries with the out of context interpretations, but then you probably knew that.

Another fail.

[Rex]

8. He guessed Trump would win, which none of us believed would happen.

So he is probably good for a few.

[duffyduff]

11. He is wrong about everything else.

He needs to stick to filmmaking and stay out of politics.

[Equinox Moon]

18. I cannot believe what I just read in your comment!

"stay out of politics" You have got to be kidding me?!

Hey! We still have a democracy (pre-trump) and it is a very good idea that everyone is involved.

[zippythepinhead]

24. I can't believe it either

People who hate michael moore usually hate Hillary too.

Like saying mcdonald's should not be making hamburgers.

michael moore is a political genius who came from humble roots.

I love MM.

[QC]

64. We've been hearing that from conservatives about Barbara Streisand

and other liberals in Hollywood for years.

It's amazing how many conservative talking points are now also DU talking points.

[Merlot]

37. That would be difficult as his films are about politics.

He also offers a 10K reward if anyone finds anything not factual in his documentaries.

[Mr. Evil]

40. With no claims to this date. n/t

[Captain1way]

56. "Stay out of politics"

That is just weird, jeeeesh

[SnowCritter]

60. Who else should "stay out of politics"?

We should all be involved in politics because politics affects us all.

You say "he is wrong about everything else". Would you care to provide some examples? Don't say "google it" - you made the claim, you back it up.

[LanternWaste]

75. Which of his films was not about politics, professor?

I'd pretend that as well if Moore's monologues didn't fit my narrative.

You do imply however, that politics is not his strength which appears to beg the question: Which of his films was not about politics, professor?

[The_Voice_of_Reason]

2. Attorney General should let dead dogs

alone...though I hope he does not. Attorneys should Pro-Bono these four all the way to the Supreme Court hoping for a win, so that precedent is set that electors are free to vote their conscience.

[roamer65]

3. That is a very good point.

[mopinko]

16. i agree. it's a start.

and should shake up those who should be hoist on that petard, but wont be.

i predict that this making it to scotus would be enough to fire a movement to kill it. which cant happen soon enough, imho.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

38. Why?

The state of Washington voted for Hillary. If you were advocating the elimination of the Electoral College you might make more sense.

[Quackers]

61. Because the laws punishing electors for

Voting their conscience have never been challenged but are believed to be unconstitutional. It would set precedent and make new case law.

[Adrahil]

68. If electors are free to ignore results... then our votes really don't count.

They are just suggestions.

Eliminate the Electoral College NOW.

[moda253]

71. That is correct.

And that's how it is intended to work. Fortunately or unfortunately

[PoliticAverse]

5. I hope someone takes this case to the Supreme Court. n/t

[Blue Idaho]

7. I hope someone dissolves the Electoral College. nt.

[BlueMTexpat]

63. + a million or so! eom

[Igel]

72. Which is to say, you hope someone dissolves the Constitution.

One's firmly embedded in the other, and there are ways to change the dead words on paper.

Sadly, the Constitutional procedures are there to protect against the much desired dictatorship of the majority. That can be a bad thing, when the majority already has power, used it wrongly, and you now want to dispose of something like slavery; it can be a good thing, like when freedoms were protected and a minority now wants to curb them. It makes it harder for the politicians to bend the state now one way, now the other, except to a reasonably small degree.

What some found frustrating in how Obama was hobbled they'll find a cause to hope in how Trump will be shackled. Those who say how Trump will rule untrammeled are very often those who refused to accept Constitutional limitations on Obama. Now they like the idea of protecting minorities and giving them not just a voice that can be ignored, but a voice that has to be accommodated; now they hate the idea of even giving minorities a voice that can be tuned out as unimportant.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

80. Seriously?

The Constitution once said slaves were 3/5 human. That was to give southern states more power. The electoral college is an offshoot of this mindset.

The Constitution is a living document which can be amended. Granted it's a slow process which means it can't be changed on just a whim.

[Blue Idaho]

86. Yeah - who needs all those pesky constitutional amendments?

Let's just leave things alone... shall we?

[Massacure]

6. This should be interesting.

Assuming Washington state does press charges, I wonder how the courts will rule on the constitutionality of this statute.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. If electors are not free to vote as they choose

even if they are chosen by party, what is the purpose of having electors
in the first place? May as well pass a law that says all EC votes are
automatic by state winner. EC serves no purpose if electors are bound and
gagged. Which kind of strongly implies that the Founders had something
else in mind.

[duffyduff]

12. They have no business fucking over the voters.

The Hamilton Electors scheme was anti-Clinton bullshit.

Odd you don't see that.

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Odd that's how you see it

EC voters never make a difference. Probably hasn't been important since
the POTUS and VP were from different parties.

[Uggwearingdad]

15. If true....we would be saying Madam President...No?

Of course EC voters make a difference...it's why we have POTUS elect shit for brains

[still_one]

41. Thank you for the obvious answer

[groundloop]

17. How quickly we forget.... the Electoral College gave us Bush.

And of course let's never forget that the Attorney General of Florida (the deciding state) was Bush's campaign chair in the state, and his brother was Governor.

Yes, unfortunately the Electoral College matters tremendously. And it very badly needs to be done away with.

[24601]

45. The Florida AG was the state's chairman for Gore. Florida's Secretary of State was Bush's chair. n/t

[duffyduff]

28. The HEs are anti-Clinton assholes.

I saw through those fuckers right away.

[JustinL]

25. In all the discussion about the EC, I've never seen an apologist even try to answer that question.

[Adrahil]

69. Frankly, at this point I don;t give a shit what the founders wanted with respect to the EC.

We have a an evil minority running this country.

When people don;t vote because they think their vote doesn't count, it's shit like this that reinforces that belief.

[Recursion]

10. Don't give them more attention and a bigger platform

Big mistake IMO

[global1]

14. Does Anyone Suspect Trump Paying Them Off....

to not vote for Hillary. You know kind of like rubbing salt in her wounds.

I can almost predict his tweet on this.

'See - they wanted the electors to defect from me - but they defected from Hillary.
The people love me.'

[PoliticAverse]

20. No. BTW 2 Trump electors also defected today. n/t

[duffyduff]

27. I wouldn't put it past him.

Assholes every last one of them.

[IronLionZion]

19. Ironic that Hillary's electors turn against her

and voted for Colin Powell

And one from Hawaii was feeling the Bern.

Trump's electors were a big disappointment

[progressoid]

34. I think one from Maine also voted for Bernie.

[Eric J in MN]

62. That Maine elector's vote was ruled invalid and then he changed his vote to HRC. (NT)

NT

[RealityChik]

21. The electors need not worry...

Lawrence Lessig will represent them as counsel in court for free and Mike Moore promised to pick up the tab for their fines. The irony of that is, of course, they were suppose to vote for Hillary! The only requirement from Lessig and Moore was that they "vote their conscience", I think. And the electors did exactly that.

[spooky3]

23. And what exactly is the "conscience" on which defection would be based?

[RealityChik]

87. Anybody...

but Trump.

[lapucelle]

52. The idea was to vote for a consensus Republican candidate rather than Trump.

Three of the four did just that, although it doesn't sound as if they coordinated with electors from other states. There was nothing "ironic" about what they did, given that that it was always the plan that Clinton electors (as well as those for Trump) get behind a consensus choice.

The fourth elector made it known before the general election that he would never vote for Hillary. He was hoping that the electoral college would be close enough that his one "swing" vote would be enough to give the presidency to Trump.

Lessig can counsel then to plead guilty and pay the $1000 fine. There's no need to "fight" the case It wouldn't surprise me if MM paid the fines for them.

[spooky3]

22. What is the principle on which their defection was based?

Trump electors had several principles that could serve as a reasonable basis for not voting for Trump.

I can't think of a single basis for an elector in a state where Clinton legitimately won the popular vote to do anything but vote for her. She is not crazy, unqualified, etc. There is no evidence that a foreign govt. interfered to give her an advantage, nor that she or her allies suppressed the votes of Republicans, etc.

[duffyduff]

26. Exactly.

Those anti-Clinton electors should be blackballed.

[zippythepinhead]

31. There has been plenty of circumstantial evidence

Many people have even been convicted and received the death penalty with only circumstantial evidence in this country throughout history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

[spooky3]

35. Are you responding to someone else? I don't see any

Connection between our comments.

[zippythepinhead]

54. sorry

I may have even posted in the wrong discussion.

Strange things are happening here.

A hack may even have caused it.

My time setting were recently changed.

Some times my posts disappear before I post them.

Strange things are happening here.

[IronLionZion]

55. Because we already had a Bush and a Dick

it was time for a Colin apparently. It does seem odd that they would coordinate to vote for Colin Powell instead of a Democrat

[CousinIT]

29. How utterly futile. And asinine. GET. RID. OF. THE. EC. n/t

[HassleCat]

30. Good strategerie!

As a former president would say. Make the party appear even more authoritarian and top-down than it already is.

[SunSeeker]

43. It is the idiot elector who was the "authoritarian."

What could be more "authoritarian" and "top down" than a rogue elector disregarding the popular vote and deciding to vote for his particular random fave rather than who the people voted for.

[HassleCat]

44. Thinking, thinking, thinking...

Sorry. Makes no sense at all.

[SunSeeker]

46. So when an elector decides he should override the vote of the public he was supposed to represent...

you don't see that as a wee bit authoritarian?

[HassleCat]

47. No.

You can say it's irresponsible, rebellious, childish, petulant, disloyal, and much more, but authoritarian doesn't fit at all.

[SunSeeker]

48. Yes, it fits quite well.

Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an authoritarian is someone who favors "a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people."

This elector thinks he knows better than the people, that his opinion matters more than the people, i.e. that he is the elite, and that he is not responsible to the people to carry out their wishes. Rather than voting for the candidate the people he is supposed to represent voted for, he is voting for someone he randomly chose--someone who is not even on the ballot. That is a pretty authoritarian attitude.

[HassleCat]

49. You missed the critical part.

"Concentration of power" does not apply here. This elector is defying the power structure, the rules and enforcement mechanisms that coerce him or her into doing what the party demands. The electoral college is designed to be authoritarian, so that's OK. And the party can seek the maximum punishment if they want to discourage similar behavior in the future. I think it would be better to back off and not make people think the party punishes electors for violations that have no significant consequences. To do so impresses me as excessively authoritarian.

[SunSeeker]

50. How is his being able to overrule the will of the many not a "concentration of power"?

The Electoral College is supposed to represent the will of the voters, not be authoritarian. Punishing authoritarianism is just the opposite of authoritarian.

[Lurks Often]

58. Electoral College is supposed to represent the will of the voters in each INDIVIDUAL state

not the whole country. If you object so strongly to electors switching their vote from Clinton to someone else, the you should object just as strongly when an elector switched their vote from Trump to someone else, because that elector is defying the will of the VOTERS in that state.

[SunSeeker]

74. These rogue electors did not represent their state's vote. nt

[HassleCat]

66. OK. Words mean whatever you want them to mean.

After all, we live in an age of jerfrdeitation.

[SunSeeker]

73. No. We can't communicate if we don't have a common understanding of what words mean.

It appears you are the one who thinks "words mean whatever you want them to mean," not me.

[HassleCat]

76. Of course it appears that way to you.

And to most people. Remember the descriptions of the 9-11 attackers as "cowardly?" We think it's OK to apply any negative description we choose to people we don't like. This is what makes you think it's OK to describe as authoritarian someone who defies authority. I can't stop you. I'm not the Emperor of Language, and you probably have the support of popular opinion and conventional wisdom.

[SunSeeker]

77. I am using the Merriam-Webster definition of "authoritarian."

You are simply incorrect to state that I "think it's OK to describe as authoritarian someone who defies authority." I never said that and I do not think that.

I do not think "it's OK to apply any negative description we choose to people we don't like." But that does seem to apply to some people. I noticed during the primary, some Bernie fans were particularly fond of calling Hillary supporters authoritarians.

[HassleCat]

78. In case I didn't explain it well enough, I give up.

You completely ignored a significant part of the dictionary definition in order to turn the meaning on its head. This discussion is neither fun nor productive, so we should just drop it. That's what I'm doing.

[SunSeeker]

79. I did not "ignore a significant part of the dictionary definition."

I stated it completely. It is not me who is "turning the meaning on its head."

But I agree, you should stop digging the hole you're in.

[milestogo]

32. Colin Powell

[Kolesar]

53. Colin Fucking Powell ? ... eom

[jg10003]

33. A test case like this is long overdue

[MFM008]

36. they need their asses kicked

Its a terrific example of how democrats lost this election. Were STILL fighting the primaries.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

39. This

[eilen]

70. I thought that was terribly petty

I mean really, way to kick a gal when she is already down.

[SunSeeker]

42. Good. nt

[yardwork]

51. This is why Trump won.

[former9thward]

82. Any fines will be thrown out in court.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution does not allow any limitations on how an elector shall vote.