The US Supreme Court previously in July quickly thought about the far-away speculative situation that the judges recognized could prompt “unrest”: the demise of the presidential applicant during the Election period.
The real case started when Electoral College members can be inflicted with a penalty as a consequence for voting in favor of the one not present among the party nominee. However, the hospitalization of President Donald Trump after testing positive for the fatal illness that has until now killed more than 200,000 residents of America amid the crisis of mail-in voting throughout the course of the pandemic is raising new concerns regarding the candidate who is deprived of strength or has departed.
The doctors of Trump are providing ambiguous answers regarding his wellbeing. Furthermore, in July, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in Chiafalo v. Washington, posing the scenario of a nominee dying shortly after Election Day but before the Electoral College met: “We do not dismiss how much turmoil such an event could cause.”
The 25th amendment depicts that if the President passed away during his tenure then Vice President Mike Pence will take his place. The unresolved query remains at what will occur if the demise of the candidate occurs before the Electoral College meets to authoritatively pick a duly elected president, which is planned to happen on December, 1.
Richard Pildes is his recent article for Washington Post pen down his hypothesis that if the president is unable to serve then the results of the elections will be decided by the House of Representatives if none of the candidates gained 270 electoral votes in their favor it will consequently create potential candidates other than Trump and Biden.
The state chooses the electors selected by the political parties with the majority of the votes. Political parties select their electors and states then choose electors based on the party’s candidate winning the popular vote in that state to serve in the Electoral College. Whereas not all states are clear on their stand to choose the substitute of Trump if he couldn’t continue to carry out his duties.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1952 Ray v. Blair decision that voters don’t have any special rights to cast their votes for whomever they want. But the Court has still not addressed the situation if the deceased candidate before the Electoral College voted. Kagan expressed his opinions as,
“[W]e suspect that in such a case, States without a specific provision would also release electors from their pledge. Still, we note that because the situation is not before us, nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate.”
During summers, the court has already assessed several election cases with a conservative majority standing with the states to impose limits on mail-in voting. The justice ought to engage in solving the legal concerns, stated by Trump.