Harvard Professor Claims Faithless GOP Electors Might Stop Trump, Says There Are Half The Number Needed To Change The Election

Harvard Law professor and one-time Democratic presidential candidate Larry Lessig went on record with Politico to claim that 20 Republican electors are now considering flipping their Electoral College vote on December 19.

Contradicting the assurances of the Republican National Committee, Lessig announced on Tuesday that more than half of the required Republican electors are now on the fence about voting for Trump.

“Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same. We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote.”

According to Politico, Lessig gave no evidence for his claims. However, during the past month, Lessig has offered pro bono legal advice to electors in an effort to prevent Trump from taking office. His anti-Trump group, Electors Trust, has served as a place for possible faithless electors to connect, share concerns, and coordinate with one another.

Currently, most of the faithless electors who have made their unconventional intentions public are Democratic electors who plan on voting against Hillary Clinton. Calling themselves the “Hamilton Electors,” this group plans to vote for an alternative Republican candidate in a last-minute bid to stop Trump from winning. Only one Republican elector so far has publicly committed to this cause, Texas elector Chris Suprun.

According to the Hill, there is no verified evidence of Lessig’s claim. Instead, the Republican electors are generally eager to cast a vote for Trump.

“Only a few voters have publicly said they will not back the results of their home states, and virtually every GOP elector reached by The Hill said they will vote enthusiastically for Trump.”

However, if there are indeed faithless electors hatching secret plots to vote against Trump, they would most likely be from states without laws prohibiting faithless electors, or from states where only minor penalties exist. Since the laws regarding faithless electors vary from state to state, unless Lessig releases specific names, it’s impossible to discern whether the 20 electors in question can legally oppose Trump.

“The penalties for violating these laws vary widely, with some states carrying no penalty at all, some issuing modest fines, and some requiring immediate replacement of electors. One state, New Mexico, treats ‘faithless’ electoral votes as felonies,” explains Politico.

Although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote by a comfortable margin of 306-232. In order for the faithless electors to overturn Trump’s win, 37 Republican electors would need to either vote against Trump or abstain from voting at all. This would prevent Trump from obtaining the required 270 Electoral College votes that would constitute a majority. Should this happen, the House of Representatives would then select the president from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes, with each state delegation casting a single vote, while the Vice President would be chosen by the Senate.

Unless rogue electors end up casting votes for candidates other than Clinton or Trump, the House of Representatives will be forced to choose between the two major party candidates. Since Republicans control the majority of the 435 House seats, with 241-194, many claim that the likelihood of Clinton being chosen in this scenario is minuscule.

However, considering the many endorsements Clinton received from Republican leaders this year, her ability to win GOP House votes may not be as unlikely as it sounds. Although Clinton may be unpopular among Republican voters, as a well-connected politician, she certainly knows her way around Washington. Trump, on the other hand, has been consistently opposed by high-ranking members of his own party. In an election year that has been full of surprises, it may very well turn out that we haven’t seen the last of Hillary Clinton yet.

[Featured Image by Jacquelyn Martin/AP Images]