August 29, 2019 | Professor Derek T. Muller is quoted in the Los Angeles Times article, “Can states restrict how electors case presidential votes? Supreme Court may have to decide.” The article examines the question of whether states can require their appointed electors to cast ballots for the candidate favored by the state’s voters on election day.
Via the Los Angeles Times:
Pepperdine law professor Derek T. Muller, who also has written extensively on the electoral college, said the Supreme Court may see a need to review the 10th Circuit’s broad view of the role of electors.
“The breadth of this opinion — a suggestion that there’s a virtually unfettered choice — is what’s the most remarkable part of it,” he said. “For decades, electors and states have had an uneasy kind of truce. Electors typically aren’t faithless, and states have wielded the threat of replacement. This opinion, however, collapses that truce. Electors are now instructed that they can vote for whomever they want, and replacement is not an option. One wonders whether electors will be more inclined to stray in 2020, particularly given fawning attention from disgruntled voters.”
The complete article may be found here