On December 19, 2016, the State Electors of Colorado met to cast their electoral votes for the Offices of President and Vice President of the United States, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of Colorado. That is pretty much where the story should have ended. But three people decided that they didn’t want to do what they had pledged that they would do.

The State was carried by Hillary Clinton, who, despite some pressure nationwide to manipulate the electoral College, was going to lose, regardless of what the State of Colorado did or did not do. But in an attempt to virtue signal in a meaningless way, three Colorado electors decided that they would not cast their votes – as pledged – to Clinton, but instead to John Kasich, a man who was not even on the ballot.

After the first man cast his vote for Kasich, he was immediately removed as an Elector. The other two, in yet another attempt at virtue signaling, promptly decided to abandon their principled stand against Clinton and actually abide by their pledge to cast their votes in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State of Colorado.

Naturally, this led to a pair of lawsuits claiming that the three had been discriminated against.

Seriously… I am not kidding.

And in one of the longest and weirdest alignment opinions ever issued, the 10th Circuit Court agreed in part and disagreed in part. Once their opinion was issued, the concern over the future of the Electoral College was justifiably increased.