Chiafalo v. Washington

Background

Three Washington members of the Electoral College — Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John — were chosen as Democratic electors after Washington's 2016 popular vote for Hillary Clinton. Each pledged to vote for Clinton, but cast ballots for Colin Powell to try to block Donald Trump from reaching a majority. Washington fined each elector $1,000 under a state law that required electors to follow their pledges. The electors challenged the fines in state court, which upheld the law; courts were split elsewhere, so the Supreme Court took the case and affirmed the Washington Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a State may penalize an elector for voting against the State's chosen candidate. It held yes. The majority relied on the Constitution's clause that lets States set how to appoint electors, the Twelfth Amendment, the long historical practice of electors acting as agents for parties and voters, and Ray v. Blair which upheld pledge requirements. The Court explained that calling someone an "elector" or saying they "vote by ballot" does not necessarily guarantee freedom to exercise independent choice. Because history and text allow States to bind electors, Washington's sanctioning law was permitted.

Real world impact

The decision lets States enforce pledge rules that keep electors aligned with the statewide popular vote. That affects presidential electors, state officials who run elections, and voters who want their statewide choice reflected in the Electoral College. The opinion resolves a split among federal appeals courts. The Court noted that Washington later replaced the fine with a removal-and-replacement mechanism for faithless electors.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas joined only in the judgment. He agreed the result but not the majority's Article II-based reasoning. He argued the Constitution is silent on binding electors and that States retain power under the Tenth Amendment to make such rules.