1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
-Dominant- [34]
2 years ago
13

In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions

on who electors can vote for. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?
History
1 answer:
Sergio039 [100]2 years ago
8 0

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions on who electors can vote for.

I agree with this decision because voting in the Electoral College is a serious thing, and members of the college have to assume this important and serious role. That is why they are members of the Electoral College and expressed their intention to vote for the candidate they supported.

I think there would be no room for faithless electors in the US Electoral College. There is no reason for them to vote for other people if they originally pledge to vote for their candidates.

On July 6, 2020, the case of Chiafalo v. Washington was decided.

You might be interested in
Which group formed the sons of liberty<br>​
NikAS [45]

Answer:

☆In Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty.

☆Sons of Liberty was a secret organization that was created in the Thirteen American Colonies to advance the rights of the European colonists and to fight taxation by the British government. It played a major role in most colonies in battling the Stamp Act in 1765.

hope it helpedlet me know!

4 0
3 years ago
What was the agreed-upon unit of currency? A) gold bars B) silver coins C) cowrie shells D) precious gems
Rudiy27

Answer:

Cowrie shells

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserv
givi [52]
Where it says there must exceed 20 bucks <span />
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why were the fjords valuable to hitler in norway?
Jlenok [28]

Answer:\

Sorry :( I don't know the answer. Im soo sorry

Explanation:

7 0
2 years ago
Which Southern state is the leader in granite?
natta225 [31]
The correct answer to this question is Texas.
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • what is a likely explanation for the fact that southern african americans were elected to congress during reconstruction but no
    13·1 answer
  • Few spanish settlers could be persuaded to settle the colony of __________ .
    12·2 answers
  • Totalitarian governments are often controlled by a single political party because the government runs more smoothly without bipa
    9·1 answer
  • Wow what is the American liberty league created
    12·1 answer
  • How did the Assyrians use the technologies of the Hittite people for their own gain
    9·2 answers
  • What role did William B. Travis play during the Texas Revolution?
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following is NOT a type of Movement
    8·1 answer
  • Which of the three laws (The Missouri Compromise, The Compromise of 1850, or The Kansas-Nebraska Act) do you think was the most
    8·1 answer
  • explain What motivated people in Italy to create the conditions that caused a Renaissance in art and culture?
    8·1 answer
  • Was the attack on Pearl Harbor and US Casualties Justified for dropping the atomic bomb? Why or why not?
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!