Release: SD Atty General helps assemble Bi-Partisan coalition to argue against faithless electors before US Supreme Court

@SoDakCampaigns

SOUTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL HELPS ASSEMBLE BI-PARTISAN COALITION TO ARGUE AGAINST FAITHLESS ELECTORS BEFORE US SUPREME COURT

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg today announced that the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

The decision of Colorado Department of State vs Baca would allow a state elector to cast their presidential electoral college vote for whomever they choose and not follow the majority elected candidate from their particular state.

Ravnsborg agreed to assist Colorado in seeking an appeal and has, to date, assembled a bipartisan coalition of 21 state attorneys general signing on as well.

“It is important to know the rules when determining any contest and this is especially important when determining the presidency of the United States,” said Ravnsborg. “If this decision is not overturned it is possible that 538 electors could determine the  leader of the free world while ignoring the votes of the rest of the country.

-30-

19 thoughts on “Release: SD Atty General helps assemble Bi-Partisan coalition to argue against faithless electors before US Supreme Court”

  2. So our new AG managed to put together a group of Republicans and Democrats to get this in front of the US Supreme Court ? I would call that pretty damn good team building!!!

  3. Another example of the AG’s skills in putting together a strong team.

    Everything I hear he is doing a great job!

    Keep up the good work AG!

  4. He put together bipartisan support to defend our electoral system? The guy is doing some serious OT for our state!

  5. The framers were pretty sharp guys and knew there would always be people trying to subvert the rule of law, glad we have this AG to fight for the constitution! If we’d have elected Silers we’d be fighting for more drag queens!!

  6. Wouldn’t it be wonderful, if we found an AG willing to bring that that office back from an obvious appearance of moral turpitude.

  8. Ravonsborg didn’t assemble or create anything. He joined a team being created by the CO AG, so all this leadership fawning is a bit much.

  9. Absolutely, nice shot at the AG but not true, I think it’s pretty clear he put this together not the CO AG, is that cheap shot Mary at it again? Or some other nitwit illiterate?

    1. Mary is still upset that her husband came in dead last. She looks for any excuse to make up lies about Ravnsborg like she did during the campaigning. She needs to get over it and move on.

  10. All I know is I hear morale is good in the office. His military leadership training is manifesting itself.

  11. I’m going to ask a serious question:
    Can anyone point to where in the Constitution it states that Electors have to follow the will of the people?
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-12
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-2-4/electoral-college
    Seriously – where does it say that they HAVE to be faithful?

    Yes faithless elector are a bad thing, but this has been happening since 1796 (Sam Miles was Pledged for John Adams, but voted for Thomas Jefferson instead). Challenging it now seems to be an up hill challenge at best.

  13. Common sense. Coastal elites should not determine the direction of the country. Distributed systems are more fault tolerant. Centralization (or coastalization in this case) is easier to subvert.

  14. John, there’s more people in thr coastal states than elsewhere, what bizarre definition of “elite” are you using that means a majority?

    And Anon at 10:39 yesterday, what part of the US Constitution says electors are required to vote for who they’re told to and not.who they choose to? I can’t remember ever seeing that in there.

Comments are closed.