nonprofit organization housed by lawyers that advocate for the uniformity of state laws. As stated before, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and now Indiana have passed this bill. In Figure 1, the states that have passed the UFPEA are shaded in blue. Essentially, the bill stops faithless electors by having their deviant votes not count and by replacing them. In the eyes of the ULC, if all states passed the UFPEA, then the problem of faithless electors would not exist. However, as mentioned before, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of faithless elector laws that force the electors to vote for their candidate i.e. the UFPEA. party’s The closest ruling to this effect is the 10th Circuit Appeals decision in Baca v. Court’s If more states passed the legislation, then there would be an increased chance that Hickenlooper. a case similar to would ensue. At this present moment, it can only be hypothesized Ray v. Blair whether the UFPEA would be constitutionally struck down or not. On the webpage, the organization provides a template of the bill. The legislation ULC’s calls for a state-administrated pledge of loyalty to that nominee that reads, elector’s party’s “if selected for the position of elector, I agree to serve and to mark my ballots for President and Vice President for the nominees for those offices of the party that nominated this me.” Within template, the ULC states their reasoning for the bill. As they phrase it, electors hold the “faithless potential for serious damage to our democratic processes, making advisable a uniform law to minimize the As illustrated in the five presidential elections discussed dangers posed.” previously, faithless electors do have the potential to completely change the outcome. In other words, the concerns are not ungrounded. Although the ULC admits that this scenario is ULC’s unlikely to arise, they assert that it is better to eliminate the problem before it occurs. Besides the UFPEA, the second proposal fundamentally alters the way the electoral college votes and thus gravely impacts faithless electors. Headed by the National Popular Vote
nonprofit organization housed by lawyers that advocate for the uniformity of state laws. As stated before, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and now Indiana have passed this bill. In Figure 1, the states that have passed the UFPEA are shaded in blue. Essentially, the bill stops faithless electors by having their deviant votes not count and by replacing them. In the eyes of the ULC, if all states passed the UFPEA, then the problem of faithless electors would not exist. However, as mentioned before, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of faithless elector laws that force the electors to vote for their party’s candidate i.e. the UFPEA. The closest ruling to this effect is the 10th Circuit Appeals Court’s decision in Baca v. Hickenlooper. If more states passed the legislation, then there would be an increased chance that a case similar to Ray v. Blair would ensue. At this present moment, it can only be hypothesized whether the UFPEA would be constitutionally struck down or not. On the ULC’s webpage, the organization provides a template of the bill. The legislation calls for a state-administrated pledge of loyalty to that elector’s party’s nominee that reads, “if selected for the position of elector, I agree to serve and to mark my ballots for President and Vice President for the nominees for those offices of the party that nominated me.” Within this template, the ULC states their reasoning for the bill. As they phrase it, “faithless electors hold the potential for serious damage to our democratic processes, making advisable a uniform law to minimize the dangers posed.” As illustrated in the five presidential elections discussed previously, faithless electors do have the potential to completely change the outcome. In other words, the ULC’s concerns are not ungrounded. Although the ULC admits that this scenario is unlikely to arise, they assert that it is better to eliminate the problem before it occurs. Besides the UFPEA, the second proposal fundamentally alters the way the electoral college votes and thus gravely impacts faithless electors. Headed by the National Popular Vote