The proceeding, while a formality, is the actual balloting under the Constitution, and electors met in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Constitution speaks of "electors," but not a college, and the electors meet only in their respective state capitals.
That, in turn, the justices in Washington suggested last week, could be impermissible because the federal Constitution says presidential electors should be selected in the "manner" specified by the Legislature.
The rules, as specified in Article II of the Constitution, remain unchanged: electors are appointed by each state, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," and the candidate receiving a majority of the votes of the electors becomes President.
In the present case the supreme court of the state has enjoined the plaintiff in error, as officers of the state, from taking steps to submit the proposed Constitution to the electors of the state, because in its judgment the act of the legislature of the state, requiring such submission, was in violation of the state Constitution.
Ms. Frankel and other Democrats said today that Republican lawmakers had been led astray by "right-wing scholars" who testified that the Legislature had an obligation under the United States Constitution to appoint electors if final results were not declared both in a timely fashion and in accordance with rules in place before the election.
By the way, the "Electoral College" is not mentioned in the Constitution -- only "Electors".
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says that electors are appointed "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"—in other words, they have some latitude in picking these guys.
The United States Constitution provides that presidential electors may be appointed in such manner as the state legislatures may direct.
(In 1804 the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted, requiring electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president).
