Colorado Electors Contest Law Requiring Them to Support Popular Vote Winner

Photo Credit: AP
Photo Credit: AP

Colorado electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich are seeking to overturn a state law that requires them to vote in accordance with the state’s popular vote. If this request were granted, it could create a precedent useful to electors in other states who hope to avoid voting for Donald Trump. However, a federal judge did not grant their request.


Hillary Clinton secured Colorado’s popular vote, but as Politico notes, similar laws exist in 28 other states — and in several of these cases, Republican electors are bound by law to vote for Trump. But as the president-elect remains steadfast in his quest to royally fuck the globe, many electors would like to prevent his ascent to the White House.

According to The Hill, Judge Wiley Daniel ruled—unfortunately—that permitting electors to disregard the state’s popular vote would “undermine” the country’s electoral process. Daniel told the plaintiffs that if they are displeased with the election’s outcome, they should seek to change the state’s law.

This request for a preliminary injunction was requested, but the lawsuit—which argues that electors should not have to vote in accordance with the state popular vote—may still prevail: it’s pending in federal court. Meanwhile, the two electors, both Democrats, hope to convince Republican electors across the nation to vote for third party candidates. Then, Trump might fall short of the 270 electoral votes necessary to become president.

Of course, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Murray, agrees with Daniel that the electors’ lawsuit “undermines” the electoral process. And even though Trump totally has more than enough electoral votes to cinch the presidency—I mean, that’s not even a concern, why would you ask?—he is contesting the lawsuit to preserve our nation’s lofty ideals of democracy. Here’s Murray, via The Hill:

“Of course, President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence have more than enough electoral votes to secure their respective offices...Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, however, threatens to undermine the many laws in other states that sensibly bind their electors’ votes to represent the will of the citizens, undermining the Electoral College in the process. That is why the President-elect and his Campaign seek to intervene in this case.”

Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense. As we are reminded everyday, there’s nothing more meaningful—more crucial—to Donald Trump than “represent[ing] the will of the citizens.”

Correction: The first version of this post erroneously noted that Donald Trump won the popular vote in Colorado. In fact, Hillary Clinton was the winner. The headline and content of the post have been adjusted accordingly.


Rachel Vorona Cote

Hi everybody: I know many of you were probably confused by my reference to Trump winning CO’s popular vote — as well you should have been, because he did not. I immediately went back to correct it, but in the meantime I’m sure there were questions here in the comments. Hope everything is cleared up now, and sorry for the mixup!