What is the basis of the new lawsuit that asserts that Texas electors can vote for Bush and Cheney even though they won the vote in Texas?
[added November 19] The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Cheney’s August trip to Wyoming to register to vote in that state was insufficient to make him an “inhabitant” of Wyoming and no longer an inhabitant of Texas. The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a state’s electors may not vote for a President and Vice President if both are inhabitants of the same state with themselves. “Inhabitant” is not necessarily synonymous with “resident.” “Inhabitant” also is used in specifying the qualifications to be elected a United States Senator, enabling New York now to have a Senator-elect Clinton. There are some older congressional precedents challenging the seating of an elected representative on “inhabitant” grounds. These precedents basically require a residence in the state plus a clear commitment to avail oneself of the rights and responsibilities of living in that state. It remains to be seen whether this challenge to Mr. Cheney’s status as a Wyoming inhabitant will be entertained
Related Questions
- Since electors are not allocated on a winner-take-all basis in Maine and Nebraska, can Maine and Nebraska voters participate in vote pairing?
- What is the basis of the new lawsuit that asserts that Texas electors can vote for Bush and Cheney even though they won the vote in Texas?
- Are Floridas electors, whoever they end up being, obligated to cast their votes for the candidate that won the popular vote in Florida?
