Since the 12th amendment, there have not been any major changes to the way the electoral college functions constitutionally. However, there are two Supreme Court cases that should be noted. Together, the 12th amendment and Article II, section I, clause II, laid the constitutional and legal foundation of which the Supreme Court gave decrees relating to faithless elector laws. In the first case (1892), the Supreme Court ruled that the McPherson v. Blacker states have the power to dictate how they want their presidential electors to be chosen. In particular, the first phrase within Article II, section I, clause II again states that State shall “each appoint, [emphasis mine], a Number of in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct became the basis of the decision. Although this case does not relate to faithless Electors” court’s elector laws directly, after the ruling, states expanded the decision into allowing Court’s themselves to create requirements for their electors. One of these requirements became pledge Six decades later, it took another Supreme Court case to determine if these laws. pledge laws were constitutional. Decided in 1952 by a 5-2 vote, is the only Supreme Court case that pertains Ray v. Blair to faithless elector laws. The debate started when a member of the democratic party, Edmund Blair refused to take his pledge to become an elector in Alabama. Specifically, Blair did party’s not agree with a particular section in that stated pledge to aid and support Alabama’s statues “a [emphasis mine] the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President of the United Blair did not agree to the pledge, the States.” Because party’s Chairman of Executive Committee of the Democratic Party Ben F. Ray denied his Alabama’s certification to be an elector. Before the Supreme Court took the case, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that it was illegal for Ray to mandate Blair take the pledge. The Court argued on
Since the 12th amendment, there have not been any major changes to the way the electoral college functions constitutionally. However, there are two Supreme Court cases that should be noted. Together, the 12th amendment and Article II, section I, clause II, laid the constitutional and legal foundation of which the Supreme Court gave decrees relating to faithless elector laws. In the first case McPherson v. Blacker (1892), the Supreme Court ruled that the states have the power to dictate how they want their presidential electors to be chosen. In particular, the first phrase within Article II, section I, clause II again states that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct [emphasis mine], a Number of Electors” became the basis of the court’s decision. Although this case does not relate to faithless elector laws directly, after the ruling, states expanded the Court’s decision into allowing themselves to create requirements for their electors. One of these requirements became pledge laws. Six decades later, it took another Supreme Court case to determine if these pledge laws were constitutional. Decided in 1952 by a 5-2 vote, Ray v. Blair is the only Supreme Court case that pertains to faithless elector laws. The debate started when a member of the democratic party, Edmund Blair refused to take his party’s pledge to become an elector in Alabama. Specifically, Blair did not agree with a particular section in Alabama’s statues that stated “a pledge to aid and support [emphasis mine] the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President of the United States.” Because Blair did not agree to the pledge, the party’s Chairman of Alabama’s Executive Committee of the Democratic Party Ben F. Ray denied his certification to be an elector. Before the Supreme Court took the case, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that it was illegal for Ray to mandate Blair take the pledge. The Court argued on
Wilson_Faithless%20Electors_A%20Check%20on%20the%20Rabble.docx