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

What They Are Saying About Justice Ginsburg and the Future of the Court
Supreme Court
What They Are Saying About Justice Ginsburg and the Future of the Court
September 19, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman appointed to the Supreme Court, has injected new uncertainty into the presidential election and set the stage for a bruising political battle in the nation's capital. Even as hundreds of people gathered Friday night... Read More

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a diminutive yet towering women’s rights champion who became the court’s second female justice, died Friday at her home in Washington. She was 87. Ginsburg died of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer, the court said. Ginsberg’s death... Read More

Supreme Court To Start New Term By Telephone
Supreme Court
Supreme Court To Start New Term By Telephone
September 17, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will continue to hold oral arguments by telephone for the start of the new term in October in light of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, a court spokeswoman said Wednesday. Kathleen Arberg of the court's public information office said in keeping with... Read More

Restaurants Say Reservation Confirmations Are Not Nuisance Robocalls
Supreme Court
Restaurants Say Reservation Confirmations Are Not Nuisance Robocalls
September 14, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Restaurant Law Center wants the Supreme Court to overturn a 9th Circuit ruling that effectively classified calls and text messages to confirm dining reservations as nuisance robocalls. The Center, an industry association representing about 1 million restaurant and food service outlets across the... Read More

Cities Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Anti-Discrimination Protections
Supreme Court
Cities Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Anti-Discrimination Protections
September 14, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Conference of Mayors and a coalition of leaders from smaller municipalities are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold protections against discrimination in the delivery of government services. The court is currently scheduled to hear the case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia... Read More

Biden’s Hint on Supreme Court Nominee Sets Off Speculation on Prospective Candidates
2020 Elections
Biden’s Hint on Supreme Court Nominee Sets Off Speculation on Prospective Candidates
September 1, 2020
by Tom Ramstack

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s recent statement during a press conference that he would nominate an African American woman to the Supreme Court if he is elected is narrowing the list to three likely nominees. Although he declined to give out the names, the... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top