facebook linkedin twitter

Supreme Court Rules States Can Penalize Faithless Electors

July 6, 2020 by Dan McCue
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that so-called faithless electors can be penalized if they renege on their pledge to vote for their state voters’ choice for president.

Writing for a nearly unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan began with a summation of the electoral process, explaining that Americans vote for a presidential candidate, but their votes actually choose members of the electoral college, who are appointed based on the popular returns and then choose the president.

“Today we consider whether a state may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his state’s popular vote,” Kagan said. “We hold that a state may do so.”

Kagan was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurrence in the case, which Gorsuch joined in part.

The decision is significant because the 2016 presidential election saw a total of 10 electors vote for someone other than their state’s chosen candidate, raising the possibility that faithless electors voting en masse could potentially swing the outcome of an election.

The consolidated case before the court came from Washington State and Colorado. The court ruled on the Washington case, then ruled on the second case as a per curiam decision.

In the Washington case, three electors — Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John — violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

In response, the state fined the electors $1,000 each for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had.

The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please. The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ray v. Blair.

In Ray, the High Court upheld a pledge requirement – though one without a penalty to back it up. Ray held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and the nation’s history, but it reserved the question whether a state could enforce that requirement through legal sanctions.

Critical to Monday’s ruling is Article II, §1 of the Constitution, which gives the states the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

The Supreme Court has long described this clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector.

“The Constitution is barebones about electors,” Kagan explained. “Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives (except that the state may not appoint members of the Federal Government).

“The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for president and vice president separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the Senate for counting. Appointments and procedures and … that is all,” she said.

Kagan goes on to note the power to appoint an elector includes power to condition that appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint, “And nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits states from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does.”

Throughout the life of the case, the electors and their supporters argued that Article II’s use of the term “electors” and the Twelfth Amendment’s requirements that electors “vote,” and that they do so “by ballot,” established that they must have discretion in their actions.

Kagan rejected that rationale, holding that “The Electors’ constitutional claim has neither text nor history on its side.”

“Even assuming other framers shared that outlook, it would not be enough,” she wrote.

“Whether by choice or accident, the framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page.”

Their “sparse instructions,” Kagan said, “took no position on how independent from—or how faithful to—party and popular preferences the electors’ votes should be.

“On that score, the Constitution left much to the future. And the future did not take long in coming. Almost immediately, presidential electors became trusty transmitters of other people’s decisions,” she concluded.

Supreme Court

October 15, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Commission Finds Crisis In Senate Confirmation Process

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the... Read More

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the U.S. Supreme Court is instead calling out the Senate confirmation process for justices. In draft documents released ahead of a public meeting on Friday, the Presidential... Read More

October 14, 2021
by Dan McCue
Justices Consider Whether to Reinstate Marathon Bomber’s Death Sentence

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish... Read More

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. At approximately 2:49 p.m. that Monday afternoon, the bombs detonated 14 seconds apart, killing three and injuring 264 others. At least... Read More

October 4, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Holds DC Not Entitled to Vote in Congress

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting... Read More

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting member in the House of Representatives. As is their custom, the justices did not explain the rationale behind their summary disposition of the case, though they... Read More

What's Old is New Again: Justices Back at Court for New Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany and marble courtroom that the justices abandoned more than 18 months ago because of the coronavirus pandemic. Abortion, guns and religion all are on the agenda... Read More

Abortion, Guns, Religion Top a Big Supreme Court Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning a new term Monday that also includes major cases on gun rights and religion. The court's credibility with the public also could be on the line,... Read More

A 'Dangerous Cabal'? Alito Says High Court is No Such Thing

WASHINGTON (AP) - Justice Samuel Alito pushed back Thursday against criticism, including some from colleagues, that recent Supreme Court actions... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) - Justice Samuel Alito pushed back Thursday against criticism, including some from colleagues, that recent Supreme Court actions in major cases have been done hastily and in the shadows. "A dangerous cabal" improperly deciding important matters — hardly, he said. Alito, in remarks at... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top