Justices to Decide If Electoral College Members Must Stick to Their Promises

May 13, 2020 by Dan McCue
Chief Justice John Roberts. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday was asked to sort out rules for the Electoral College system of selecting a president, and to decide whether those rules allow “faithless” electors to vote as they please or instead gives states the power to remove them.

The two cases that occupied the court on this, the last day justices were scheduled to hear oral argument by teleconference, concern matters that extend back to the founding of the nation.

The Electoral College, as most readers of The Well News know, was established by the U.S. Constitution to address the concern of some of the founders about the wisdom of holding direct elections for president.

As originally conceived, the Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate membership (two for each state) and House of Representatives delegation (which varies, depending on population).

The rules have been amended twice, first by the 12th Amendment, which mandated separate ballots for president and vice president, and then by the 23rd Amendment, which provided an additional three electors to the District of Columbia.

Every state but Maine and Nebraska uses a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate who prevails in the popular vote gets all of the state’s electoral votes, regardless of the margin of victory.

The overwhelming majority of electors don’t attempt to break ranks, but occasionally faithless voters have appeared.

Though none of these individuals have changed the outcome of a presidential election, the 2016 election was noteworthy for the number of electors who wanted to vote for someone other than the winning candidate in their state — 10 — and their willingness to fight for their perceived right in court.

Most of these faithless electors were Democrats, and most of the activity was aimed at handing the presidency to someone other than Donald Trump.

The first case heard by the justices Wednesday came from Washington State, where the state’s highest court ruled last year that three faithless electors in 2016 could be fined $1,000 each for voting for Colin Powell for president, rather than Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee who won the state’s popular vote.

The state has since changed its law to provide for the removal of electors who attempt to vote for someone other than the popular-vote winner.

The second case came from Colorado, where one elector, Michael Baca, cast his vote for former Ohio Gov. John Kasich rather than Clinton. Baca was removed as an elector as a result. He and two other electors sued.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the electors, holding, effectively, that an elector has a right to vote their conscience.

Earlier on, Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard Law Professor and attorney for the electors, told the justices he believes the framers of the Constitution intended electors to follow the instructions of the voters of their state — but only up to a point.

At the end of the day, Lessig said, electors have to exercise their discretion in casting a vote.

Several justices pushed back on this point, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who worried allowing such freedom would result in electoral chaos.

Lessig was undeterred, telling the justices that while the Constitution bestows upon states the power to appoint electors, those individuals are then allowed to cast those votes “without regulation by the state.”

If electors have any obligations, he argued, they are moral and political, rather than legal.

The attorneys for Washington and Colorado, which are among the 32 states and the District of Columbia that require presidential electors to vote for their party’s nominees if they win the statewide vote, were having none of this.

“One condition that states are clearly allowed to impose is that electors promise to support the presidential candidate preferred by the state’s voters,” Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell said.

Further, he argued that states have long exercised their power to remove or punish faithless electors who have violated their pledges and gone back on their word.

Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser said to upset these longstanding practices could cause a constitutional crisis.

But the justices didn’t appear inclined to accept so dire a view.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, pushed back at a claim that the public would quickly lose faith in their elections if members of the Electoral College could vote as they want.

“Faithless voting … has always been rare,” she said at one point. “So how much difference does it make?”

But perhaps the moment that will most be remembered from Wednesday’s hearing belonged to Justice Clarence Thomas, who invoked “Lord of the Rings” protagonist Frodo Baggins while questioning Michael Baca’s attorney, Jason Harrow.

“The elector who had promised to vote for the winning candidate could suddenly say, you know, I’m going to vote for Frodo Baggins. I really like Frodo Baggins. And you’re saying, under your system, you can’t do anything about that,” Thomas said, offering up the unexpected hypothetical.

“Your honor, I think there is something to be done, because that would be a vote for a nonperson. No matter how big a fan many people are of Frodo Baggins,” Harrow responded.

“I do think the important point is that the framers hashed out these competing concerns,” he added. “They understood the stakes and they said among these competing hypotheticals, electors are best placed to make the ultimate selection. That hasn’t changed.”

Later, Attorney General Weiser also made reference to the fictional hobbit.

“My friends on the other side have failed to offer any viable theory on how to address the spectacle of a bribed elector, an elector who votes for Frodo Baggins, or one who would perpetrate a bait-and-switch on the people of the state,” Weiser said.

With the close of Wednesday’s arguments, the high court had heard 10 cases by telephone over six days as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Audio of the arguments was broadcast live, a first for the court. The cases the justices heard had been previously postponed because of the virus. Additional previously scheduled cases have been postponed until the fall.

The justices are expected to hand down their ruling in the faithless electors case by late June.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Release of Full Mueller Report
Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Release of Full Mueller Report
July 2, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would decide whether Congress may see currently redacted parts of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. As is their custom, the justices did not... Read More

High Court Strikes Down Ban on Taxpayer Funding for Religious Schools
Education
High Court Strikes Down Ban on Taxpayer Funding for Religious Schools
June 30, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools on Tuesday, saying such institutions can't be prevented from participating in programs that use public funds to support private education. The 5-4 ruling upheld a Montana scholarship program that allows state... Read More

Justices Hold Booking.com Can Trademark Its Name
Business
Justices Hold Booking.com Can Trademark Its Name
June 30, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — A nearly unanimous Supreme Court said Tuesday that the travel website Booking.com can trademark its name, a ruling of high significance to other companies using a generic word followed by ".com." as a name. Lower courts had sided with Booking.com, but the Trump administration... Read More

Supreme Court Affirms Trump's Right to Say 'You're Fired' to Consumer Regulator
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Affirms Trump's Right to Say 'You're Fired' to Consumer Regulator
June 29, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed President Donald Trump's ability to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Monday, but left undisturbed the rest of the statute that created the agency in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. Writing for the... Read More

Supreme Court Upholds Prostitution Pledge for AIDS Funding
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Prostitution Pledge for AIDS Funding
June 29, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld a provision of federal law Monday that requires foreign affiliates of U.S.-based health organizations to denounce prostitution as a condition of receiving taxpayer money to fight AIDS around the world.  Writing for the majority in the 5-3 ruling, Justice Brett... Read More

Supreme Court Refuses to Block Federal Executions
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Federal Executions
June 29, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court on Monday refused to block the execution of four federal prison inmates -- executions that will mark the first use of the death penalty on the federal level in nearly 20 years. A majority of justices declined to hear an... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top