Christopher Suprun, a Texas Republican, could not bring himself to vote for his party’s nominee when he exercised his duty as a member of 2016’s Electoral College. Lingering questions about Donald Trump’s grasp of foreign policy, old comments on race, and his opaque personal finances meant he instead chose then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
The abuse followed swiftly.
“I was doxxed, threatened, and followed,” he said. “Same with my wife. Same with my kids.”
But given the chance, Suprun would do the same again in 2020, he told the Washington Examiner, even after the Supreme Court this week upheld the right of states to penalize “faithless electors.”
On Monday, the justices unanimously ruled against the argument that electors, appointed to act on behalf of a state, can reject election results to exercise their own discretion in the candidate they back.
The outcome was welcomed by his supporters, who said it not only respected the will of the Founding Fathers, but it fixed a potential hurdle for the president’s reelection campaign.
“I believe the Supreme Court made the right decision, consistent with the Constitution, that the states ‘may’ require presidential electors to support the winner of the popular vote in their state,” said Doug Deason, co-chair of the Texas Victory Fund. “Obviously, if the November election is close, this ruling is more likely to benefit President Trump over Biden. Any rogue electors would probably be more likely to oppose the president’s reelection.”
The court action stemmed from an attempt in 2016 by a number of Democratic electors to encourage Republicans to vote against Trump, tilting the Electoral College toward defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Her campaign chairman wanted to go further and urged intelligence chiefs to brief electors on Russian interference in the election.
“Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution, and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed,” said John Podesta, who was among the Democratic officials to have their email accounts hacked.
In the end, 10 of the 538 electors cast ballots for someone other than the winner of their state’s popular vote — the highest number in a century and enough to change the outcome of 5 of the 58 previous elections.
Officials on both sides are already preparing for legal action in the event of a close, contested result this time around.
As things stand, 32 states and the District of Columbia require electors to promise to vote for a specific candidate. And half will replace or penalize “faithless electors.”
Monday’s Supreme Court opinion allows those laws to remain in force, including one in Washington state that last time around fined three Democratic electors for voting for someone other than Clinton (as part of their effort to persuade Republicans to follow suit and ditch Trump).
But Suprun, whose record as a 9/11 first responder was questioned in the aftermath of his decision amid a wave of unfounded allegations, said nothing changed the question electors must ask themselves.
“I think it would be the same message as last time,” he said. “Is this really the person you want leading your party?”
Others said the Supreme Court opinion removed at least some of the potential variables from what is likely to be a bitterly contested election.
Matt Lewis, author of Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots), said the current system seemed a long way from the sort of perfect world in which the Electoral College would comprise the sort of respected elites who can vet candidates, vote their conscience, and act as a check on public passions. But that has not existed for a long time, and the current system is vulnerable to exploitation.
“As such, this ruling essentially prevents the chaos that could ensue if one or two faithless electors decided to overturn the will of their state, and thus, tip the scales on the whole election,” he said. “It’s hard to say if this decision is pro-Trump or anti-Trump, but I think it is anti-chaos — which is better than nothing.”
