SCOTUS decision on Faithless electors

Post Reply New Topic

Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. In response, the State fined the Elec-tors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same can-didate 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 Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214. In Ray, this Court upheld apledge requirement—though one without a penalty to back it up. Rayheld that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions.

Very important news. While faithless electors have not come close to deciding an election in todays polarized atmosphere combined with the deteriorating quality of the candidates we can’t assume it will always be so.

And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens.Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen. Pp. 13– 17.