Faithless electors: Chiafalo v. Washington

 Here are my notes on this very recent case concerning "faithless electors" and presidential elections:

Chiafalo v. Washington:

On July 6 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld state laws that forbid so-called faithless electors from violating their duty to cast their vote in the Electoral College for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in their particular state.

The decision was based upon the text of Article II, section 1, which provides that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.”

Moreover, the Court noted that there has been “a long settled and established practice” that presidential electors have a duty to faithfully represent “their selectors’ choice of presidential candidate.” This practice “reflects a tradition more than two centuries old.”

Finally, Justice Kagan’s opinion was based upon the integrity of the democratic process for election of the President—the people of each state vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and the electors selected based upon that vote “have no ground for reversing the vote” of the citizens who cast their ballots at the polls.

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if faithless electors reversed the outcome of a presidential election by voting against the will of the people. It would be a coup, not a democratic election!

The bottom line is this: states have the power to compel presidential electors to cast their votes in the Electoral College for the candidate who won the presidential election in their state. Presidential electors do not have a right to reverse the outcome of a presidential election by voting as they please. They are mere agents of the voters in their respective states.