Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act; proponents say law would prevent ‘faithless’ votes
Summary
At an informational hearing, the Uniform Law Commission and advocates described LC 104, which would treat an unfaithful presidential elector’s ballot as a vacancy and allow immediate replacement so a state's certified choice is represented in the Electoral College.
Lane Shetterly, an Oregon commissioner on the Uniform Law Commission, told the Senate interim committee that the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act establishes a clear remedy if a presidential elector votes for someone other than the candidate associated with the state ballot. "That vote is not counted, and an alternate is appointed who will vote for the candidate," Shetterly said, describing the Act’s vacancy-and-replacement approach.
Jermall Keels, a regulatory compliance specialist with Protect Democracy United, said current Oregon statute requires electors to sign a pledge but lacks enforcement. "This suggests a clear desire to ensure that our presidential electors honor the will of Oregon voters, but it is missing a reliable enforcement mechanism," Keels said, arguing that rising threats and pressure on electors make stronger protections necessary.
David Weinberg, a policy strategist with Protect Democracy United, walked the committee through the bill text and urged several technical amendments. He said the bill would require parties to document that nominees have taken the required oath, direct the secretary of state to review completed electoral ballots and refuse those filled out unfaithfully, and ensure immediate replacement of vacated electors under Oregon’s existing procedures. Weinberg recommended clarifying nomination and substitution language, aligning phrasing with party-based nominations to avoid conflicts with Oregon’s participation in the National Popular Vote interstate compact, and improving transmission timing for amended certificates of ascertainment.
Committee members asked for concrete examples of pressure on electors. Weinberg and Shetterly cited academic surveys and past episodes in other states of sustained harassment — including large volumes of threatening emails and mail — as reasons to adopt safeguards now. No vote on LC 104 occurred; presenters and lawmakers said amendments are expected before the measure returns for action.
The hearing record shows proponents described the Act as bipartisan and already enacted in a number of states; the committee closed the informational session with the expectation of future amendments and further review.
