Supreme Court says states may require presidential electors to support popular-vote winner

[FBaggins]

18. It does not appear to do so

The holding is simply that states have the power to enforce the state's voters' choice for President. It does not say/hint that states have the power to enforce a choice by voters outside the state.

The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred

The decision holds that states have complete power to choose how their electors are decided, so long as the Constitution doesn't otherwise exclude that power. So, if a state has a law saying the state will choose electors based on the winner of the national popular vote, this decision holds that the electors must vote for that person or they can be removed.

Sorry. The second sentence is not supported by the first. The argument against NPV is precisely that Constitution does otherwise exclude that power. Nothing in this ruling weakens that argument. It says only that this power does extend to requiring them to vote for the selection made by that state's voters.

I know conservatives are crowing about this, although a faithless elector has never actually hurt them, but it's a win for us.

I haven't seen the crowing... but I suspect it'd mostly because this position (below) was unanimously proven wrongheaded. I don't think that's a conservative victory. There were plenty of DUers who also recognized that the "electors can vote for whomever they want" position was nonsense.

&feature=emb_logo