The Oregon lawmakers have approved a bill that would guarantee the states electoral votes go to the winner of the national election for President of the United States. Citing that there have only been five instances in the past where a President had not won the popular vote but had still won the election. Hearing calls that we are a democracy is common when people defend this decision as the Oregon House passed SB870 by a 37-22 vote with a split mostly down party lines. This vote was almost two months after the Oregon State Senate voted 17-12 to approve the bill. With Governor Kate Brown signaling that she supports the legislation and will likely sign it.
Arguments can and are still to be made to the Federal Courts whether these individual state laws comply with the United States Constitution. With the practice throughout our country’s history of the electoral votes going to that states individual victor. Similar laws in the past have not survived legal battles in the Supreme Court. In Clause 2 of the Constitution, it guarantees the right of each person to have their vote to be heard, this would not be the case of the entire state ignores the voters of the state and instead awards the electoral votes to the person who wins California, New York, and Texas.
Democrats push to have illegals vote, Democrats push to have convicted felons to vote, and a push to have the voting age lowered is not all coincidence. This has been their plan from the beginning, to steal the election any way they can. Even if one state says illegals cannot vote it will cast its electoral votes toward the winner of a state who lets them vote winner of the popular vote. According to Williams v. Rhodes the states cannot make rules themselves that affect the Constitutionally electors, ” There, of course, can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors, But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted power are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution…. It cannot be thought that the power to select electors could be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands that specifically bar States from passing certain kinds of laws.” Does this case law with regards to the fourteenth amendment now apply to those of us who will soon have our vote cast aside in favor of the most populated states to elect our future leaders?
Written by Stephan Ball