Talk:Baca v. Hickenlooper

Untitled
Per the last line of the section "Litigation" in the article "Faithless Electors in the United States Presidential Election, 2016" and its footnote 37, four electors from Washington state were fined $1000 each". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C500:72A6:34BA:8345:A40D:8466 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baca v. Hickenlooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161122235026/http://www.hamiltonelectors.com/ to http://www.hamiltonelectors.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Baca v. Colorado Department of State
This case is the same case as the Baca v. Colorado Department of State case. Now that the 10th Circuit has issued an opinion under the latter name, there is no need for a separate article and this one should simply be redirected. Shirahadasha (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: This case represents an earlier stage in the proceedings (it was called by this name at a motion for preliminary injunction). But there is only one case, and there only needs to be one article. Shirahadasha (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, especially now that the other case has reached the Supreme Court. I will merge when I get a chance, or someone else can go for it. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)