States can require presidential electors to vote for the candidates they are committed to, the Supreme Court ruled less than four months before what could be another tight national contest.
The 538 members of the Electoral College are chosen based on the presidential vote in each state, and they, in turn, elect the president of the United States. States can require these electors to vote for the statewide winner or otherwise follow state laws, the court ruled.
Justices decided against four 2016 Electoral College electors seeking to overturn state laws binding them to the presidential nominee to whom they are pledged. In that race, a record seven electors didn’t back the candidate to which they were pledged. A total of 10 electors rebelled last cycle, and seven of those votes counted toward the final tally. The overall results were 304 for Donald Trump, 227 for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and others seven, instead of Trump 306 to Clinton 232.
Four “faithless electors,” one from Colorado and another three from Washington, presented their oral arguments to the Supreme Court last month challenging the laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia.
In 2016, Democratic Colorado elector Micheal Baca voted for John Kasich and had his ballot replaced with one from a loyal alternate elector. The Democratic Washington electors cast “deviant” votes for Colin Powell and were fined $1,000 for their transgressions.
In deciding Colorado Department of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court weighed whether electors were free, independent agents or simply popular will proxies. The justices also considered the constitutional question of whether states’ rights to appoint and remove electors meant they can penalize electors or discount their vote should electors exercise their own discretion.
The ruling comes less than four months out from November’s 2020 general election, a contest that could be tighter than the fall fight four years ago.
Faithless electors are traditionally a rare phenomenon. But the electors brought cases in their respective jurisdictions after an uptick in objections in 2016 that were part of the “Hamilton Electors movement.” The movement was a failed pressure campaign that was cobbled together as a last-ditch effort to deny Trump the presidency.
