A federal judge in Colorado denied on Monday a motion from two electors who want to avoid voting for the presidential candidate who won the state's popular vote in an effort to keep Donald TrumpDonald TrumpRobert Gates says 'extreme polarization' is the greatest threat to US democracy Cassidy says he won't vote for Trump if he runs in 2024 Schiff says holding Bannon in criminal contempt 'a way of getting people's attention' MORE out of the White House.
According to ABC 7 Denver, Judge Wiley Daniel said granting the injunction to allow electors to vote in the Electoral College out of sync with the popular vote would "undermine" the electoral process.
He advised the plaintiffs to try to change state law if they were unhappy with how the election shook out.
Though Daniel rejected the request for a preliminary injunction, the lawsuit — which challenges a state law requiring electors to vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote — is still pending in federal court.
Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonTrump criticizes Justice for restoring McCabe's benefits Biden sends 'best wishes' to Clinton following hospitalization The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Altria - Jan. 6 panel flexes its muscle MORE won Colorado’s Electoral College votes on Nov. 8. But depending on the result of the lawsuit, similar laws in 28 other states — including several in which Trump won the popular vote — could be in jeopardy.
The two Democratic electors hope to persuade Republican electors in other states to vote for a third-party candidate to keep Trump from receiving the necessary 270 votes.
Trump's lawyer, in a filing to the court, wrote Monday that the lawsuit threatened to "undermine" the results of the election.
“Of course, President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceReplace Kamala Harris with William Shatner to get kids excited about space exploration Bennie Thompson not ruling out subpoenaing Trump Heritage Foundation names new president MORE have more than enough electoral votes to secure their respective offices,” wrote attorney Christopher Murray in a filing submitted to the court, as reported by Politico.
“Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, however, threatens to undermine the many laws in other states that sensibly bind their electors’ votes to represent the will of the citizens, undermining the Electoral College in the process. That is why the President-elect and his Campaign seek to intervene in this case.”