Could Loren, or anyone else not banned at FR, post Clay Bradley's reply to BZ?

Found an interesting section of the bill. I'm just wondering about jurisdictional law and if this section is even enforceable.


Is this paragraph even enforceable?

I've only studied Criminology, but generally for Nebraska to have jurisdiction over a felony, the crime has to be committed within the State of Nebraska. Are there cases where Nebraska has Jurisdiction over a crime that is not committed within the State? And since the Electoral College Vote takes place outside the State of Nebraska (or in that fact, any other State), can this law of Nebraska actually be enforced?

I'd like an actual Lawyer to tell me if I'm completely off base here.

Just thought of another thing.

The paragraph I just quoted to you would be added to the law, and immediately following a paragraph that says:


Don't these two sections of law actually conflict? What happens when someone is the candidate with the highest number of votes, but doesn't have the SOS's sign off that they're eligible. The person is bound to vote for the person with the highest number of votes. However, according to this new paragraph, they'd be committing a felony if they voted for that person. So, wouldn't this person have a no-win situation, where they'd either be forced to commit a felony under the law, or they'd be forced to violate the law that I just quoted to you. Am I completely off base here?

Oh, test of the law can be found here: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDoc ... /LB654.pdf

I think the law is stupid but the electors meet within their respective states. It's in the Constitution:



-Amendment 12, superseding this original language from Article II:

The two sections quoted don't conflict - I think Nebraska elects two electors for the whole state ("at large") and one for each district. Nebraska is not "winner takes all".

I don't know if we have ever had anyone charged as a 'Faithless Elector'. I know folks have done it, but I don't think it has ever been successfully prosecuted.

I meant in this scenario (however unlikely it is).

Under this law, there is a candidate that the Secretary of State doesn't certify on the ballot. However, through a successful write-in campaign, they either win the State, or at least win one out of the three Congressional Districts. Under the law, at least one person is bound to vote for this person. However, in this scenario, if they did vote for that person, they'd be committing a Felony.

So, they either have to violate the paragraph binding their vote to the write-in candidate. Or, they have to commit what is classified as a Class 4 Felony. What do they do?

IMO, no. Period. The states have absolutely no jurisdiction over anything relating to the decisions of individual members of the Electoral College. Nevertheless, many states have such provisions in their civil or criminal codes.



Generally, states have jurisdictions over crimes which have their impact in the state, or affect state citizens. The due process clause states the outermost limit of this "long-arm" jurisdiction, so states can't exceed that, but you're correct, IMO, that the actions of the Electoral College are entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the states cannot regulate these actions, no matter where the EC sits.



Well, you'll have to wait for an "actual lawyer," but even an actual lawyer couldn't answer your question absolutely. It would just be an opinion. No court has weighed in on this issue in a manner that would be definitive, since in actual practice, faithless electors have never done anything that prompted a challenge, since there is no Presidential election where faithless electors have altered the outcome. There have been a few faithless electors who have caused press controversy, but no criminal prosecutions have ensued.

I have thought about this issue a fair amount over the years, and it is my considered opinion that these statutes are unconstitutional, and would be unconstitutional even if the federal government enacted them. However, the original view of the Electoral College was that the electors would, indeed, make their own choice instead of being pledged to a particular candidate. One could be shocked that the alleged "originalists" on the Supreme Court would never, ever try to enforce this interpretation, if one didn't realize they are "originalists" in name only, and are actually a blend of legal realist and legal positivist.

I'm with you now - I shouldn't post before coffee!

The result is to disenfranchise 3rd party voters. It would be OK if you ran from the big 2, but if you were 'something' else then you face problems like faithless electors.

LB654 is now most sincerely dead.

The Nebraska Legislature adjorned sine die last thursday - earlier than I expected - with the bill still languishing unloved in committee. BDZ must be devastated.

Make sure that LAUREL Stake goes right through it's evil little heart, cut off the head, and fill BZN...oops, fill the head with garlic...close coffin - bury real deep in Birfer Hill.