Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas brought levity to the high court’s oral arguments by invoking Frodo Baggins on Wednesday.
Wrapping up its spring term, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases that pertained to the Electoral College, Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca.
Jason Harrow, an attorney for a “faithless elector” in Colorado, argued that electors ought not to be bound to vote for the presidential candidate who wins their state, prompting questioning from Thomas.
“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 asked.
“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 … They understood the stakes, and they said, among these competing hypotheticals, ‘electors are best placed to make the ultimate selection.’ That hasn’t changed.”
The first case examines a law from Washington state that requires electors to cast their votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote. In 2016, some electors cast their vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell and were subsequently fined $1,000 by the Washington secretary of state. The Supreme Court will examine whether the law violates the electors’ First Amendment rights.
The second case involves three presidential electors who sued the Colorado Department of State for enforcing a law that requires electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. In this case, they argue the law violates their rights provided both in Article II and the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
