Christopher Suprun, a Republican member of the Electoral College, has penned a column announcing his intention not to abide by his constitutional duties and vote for the candidate who rightfully won his state in the 2016 election, Donald Trump.
Instead he planned to vote for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, which was certainly a better option than voting for failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Moreover, he hoped to inspire other electors to follow his misguided path.
“The election of the next president is not yet a done deal,” the Texas paramedic wrote for The New York Times. “Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience.”
“I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio,” he added, calling Trump’s behavior “unacceptable” in a presidential hopeful. “I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.”
I can not, nor will I, cast my ballot for Donald Trump.
— (((Chris Suprun))) (@TheChrisSuprun) December 6, 2016
In defending his beef with Trump, Suprun laid out some allegations, including this one: “Mr. Trump urged violence against protesters at his rallies during the campaign.”
Trump has already refuted this particular allegation. Plus, evidence has shown that the Democrat Party maliciously conspired to incite violence at Trump’s rallies.
— CNN (@CNN) March 12, 2016
Furthermore, according to Dan Abrahams’ LawNewz, Suprun was wrong in his belief that he and other electors had the right to “vote their conscience.” The site pointed to Ray v. Blair, a Supreme Court decision wherein the justices “rejected the idea that an elector had any constitutionally protected right to vote in the Electoral College as he or she chose.”
Granted, this only meant that a party maintained the “authority to strip an elector of participation in the Electoral College for failure to honor” his or her pledge of loyalty to the party’s nominee. Still, the underlying point there was that Suprun could still be stopped were the Republican Party to strip him of his electorship. Whether the party would actually do that remained to be seen.
What was known was that three Texas electors had tried to pull the same stunt during the 2012 election but changed their minds after the then-Texas GOP’s chairman reminded them of their pledge, as reported by Politico.
Perhaps the current chairman should follow his predecessor’s path and have a word with Suprun.
Like us on Facebook – USA Liberty News
What do you think the Republican Party should do about him? Scroll down to comment below!